The Right Kind of Rose

My Biggest Problem is Apathy But I Am Too Lazy to Care

2007-08-20T08:14:00.000-07:00

After two years in youth ministry I have noticed a disturbing trend in teens over the past years. They don't tilt at windmills (see Don Quixote). They don't drive hard, strive hard, work hard, believe hard, and accept hard.

These teens have nearly no problem holding in tension their impure relationships with their boyfriend and girlfriend and their relationship God. And they can look at porn and not really feel convicted. And they can do drugs and then go into a worship service. These things they may never talk about it but that is because they are privately held beliefs and they don't need to be shared with anyone else.

So the Readers Digest timeline of American thought according to D.M. Rose would go something like this: WWII vets come home and after see death and destruction the likes of which this world has rarely seen decide to have lots of babies.

Those babies grow up hearing stories from their parents about the war and decide they don't want that for their generation and being the largest generation ever in America they have serious political sway. This political sway is used to push their post-modernist agenda because they see religion, moral beliefs, and "personal beliefs" disagreements at the root of violence.

So the hippies finally have kids after coming out of their LSD-induced comas and because they stood for nothing their kids don't know what to stand for outside of the fact that they want to own this world and their drive produces a heathen yuppie generation (see the eighties-coke-addicted-stock traders and the dotcom billionaires of the nineties).

And now those yuppies (who were open-minded enough to inter-marry not just denominations but religions and political parties) have kids who they don't want to punish or push because rules are lame, man (the one thing their parents did teach them). Additionally, they allow their kids to choose their religious views from the time they are fetus as if a child has the cognitive ability to process what is actually right or wrong let alone what they need (as opposed to want).

This up-and-coming generation ranging from 8-22ish stands for nothing. They were allowed to choose religion like so many candy bars at the grocery store so how much different can one be from another (outside that some may contain more nuts than others)? The same goes for political stances- who cares? Maybe it works for you and not me but, really, what does it matter?

The only thing I hear anyone in this age-bracket saying anything about is global warming and AIDs in Africa- simply talking points made by left-leaning talking heads that have no real personal implications in the life of your typical American teenager therefore requiring no change in lifestyle and no more serious an action than the purchase of a condom and "fuel-efficient" car. Not to mention, who cares if people illegally cross our borders, they just want a better life and who cares if a mother kills an unborn child, she just cannot afford it/doesn't really want it/wouldn't really love it and who cares if gays get married because they will just live together anyway? Who cares? WHO CARES?

This is not open-mindedness, this is apathy. They don't even really believe what they say they believe because they don't really care. Finally, we arrive back to the present. Where I sit, staring out across a sun setting on my lawn wondering how to impact even the relatively small group of kids I have so they will care. All I can do is tell them what I believe and the rest is up to them... or is that just the kids talking?

Skip the End Zone Dance

2007-02-15T12:17:00.000-08:00

Since I was a child I have been told to be more patient, slow down, take it easy, just relax and- to the surprise of many and chagrin of others- I can now say that I am a zen-master level of poker faces. Not that I don't have many trials more to go but in my first two years of ministry and work I feel that I have learned to sit in a horribly uncomfortable situation and have my face betray nothing. Which brings me to my point.

During all four of my college years I played flag football- seemingly insignificant to a casual observer but I am highly competitive and for 3 of my 4 years my team went to the championship game and the first two times I watched in disgust and frustration as we were beaten. During my senior year we went for the third time and this time won in the last play of the game. I remember being so happy over such a stupid thing that I ran and slid across the ground, knees down, in the cold and yelling. My wife, understanding my immaturity, smiled and hugged me (okay, she kissed me up good too).

But sometimes in life after a long struggle and final victory (hopefully of greater significance than flag football) you don't get to run and scream and do an end-zone dance. Because as you get older you worry about the other team remembering too much and their fans looking for you later. You realize that you can snatch happiness from the jaws of success and replace it with bitterness and regret if tact is not used.

You don't get to be Lattrell Spreewell or Mia Hamm or David Beckham and tear your shirt off at the zenith of victory and swing it around your head taunting those you have bested. You want to. But you don't.

And this is the difference between victory and Pyrrhic victory sometimes. You can win and win or win and lose. The man who wins and wins throughout life is the man who doesn't show his enemies his cards when the have all folded. Maybe he bluffed, maybe he didn't but you won't know next time either because he might need that trick again- and he will make sure it costs you to find out.

So when you win, win as a gentleman and as a spy. The one who laughs hardest and longest is the one that won and got away and no one ever knew they won. No successful spy tells his enemies what he did even when he was done- that's just stupid.

So skip the end-zone dance, watch the clock tick down, say nothing, and jog to the locker room. There's always another game- you might see some of those people again.

A Man Can Change (or Keep) His Stars

2007-01-18T07:45:00.000-08:00

Today, as I walked up to my local coffee shop to meet with my brother and dad- as we do every week for our little "Man Club"- as was approached by a skinny, greasy, in-need-of-a-shower, late-twenties, poorly dressed white guy who proceeded to launch into a story about, "Wouldn't you know it but my car broke down and I don't have money or my wallet or my brain." (Okay, I added that last part)

Despite what some of my critics think of me I really am a tender person and gave this pathetic individual some cash. He then proceeded to get into his running car 75 yards off and drive away. And I was mad.

Not so much mad about losing some cash to the man but mad that now, the next time someone is in need I will be that much more cynical, that much more leery, that much more unwilling to help. And it made me think about the culture of the poor.

That guy probably saw his father do that type of thing. He grew up knowing welfare, delinquent fathers, lots of beer, poor hygiene, lack of emphasis on schooling, hard work, or morals. And you know what? He is still as liable for his actions as I am for mine.

You do not act out because your momma did not breast feed you enough, coddle you enough, your daddy was not there, you grew up poor, you were bullied or whatever new cop-out-drugstore-pop-psychology excuse some hot shot lawyer just used to get his multiple-repeating-criminal client out of the court charges of beating his girlfriend who wanted her child support payment and knocked over the local 7-11.

Hence I am Armenian. You chose. God gave enough grace to everyone to be liable to have either chosen Him or rejected Him come judgment day. I have known family members and friends who have rejected what they grew up with and ran down a road so vastly different than what they grew up with that it would shock most of their acquaintances to know their roots. It has nothing to do with intellect or some humanistic "scoobalah" (props to Dr. Chris Bounds).

Now I must turn my guns on a sacred cow. When the civil rights movement began blacks couldn't vote, sit in some diners, had to go to different water fountains, and couldn't hold some jobs. Let me just say, that is the dumbest list of rules I have ever heard in my life. And so sit-ins, race marches, and speeches began. The oppressed culture began to move and be promoted and make things of themselves. And I look around now to see something else.

I see NBA stars punching fans and NFL stars bickering over dances done on the field and prisons surging to the breaking point full of minority status citizens. And the leaders of the culture explain it away saying the rap is part of the "culture".

And this behavior serves the same purpose as the white guy at my coffee shop did for me. It taints you in ways you don't want to be tainted. I don't want to view every lower-class white person with the same disdain, distrust, and disgust that I viewed that man this morning. Nor do I want to view every pop-culture black man as having an entourage or attempting to go through airport security with marijuana in his water bottle.

What we must do is continue to act in the way God called us to. When I interned at a large church in Indiana the head pastor received a man into his office very similar to my friend from the coffeehouse and in the end gave him some cash. He told me, "How we act is between us and God and how he acts is between him and God."

The hard fact is that stereotypes may be stereotypes because that is what happens a majority of the time (the hobo is buying liquor, that man is on drugs, crime is higher among the poor, etc.) but that does not mean we should stop being insensitive to the Holy Spirit because we do not live to the audience of people around us and their opinions but to the Audience of One. He sees our compassion or lack their of. He sees our choices for good or ill. And He is the one to judge at the end of the day.

When You Get Hit...

2006-12-12T12:37:00.000-08:00

I usually avoid blogging about my personal life but right now I need to vent. I have had one bad day after another for about nine days now, haven't had a day off in nearly two weeks, and it seems as if things are just caving in around me.

Let me just say this to anyone who can't man up and deal with crap by confronting other people: grow up. Either take a swing or shut-up.

And don't make a bed you aren't willing to lie in and then try to pass it off ot someone else.

"Everyone has a plan until they get hit in the mouth." -Mike Tyson

ROTC- The Right Path

2006-11-30T09:36:00.000-08:00

Ahhhh... for all of the cries I hear about, "What does Jerusalem have to do with Athens?" I certainly do see Athen's issues reflected throughout the blogoshpere of my peers. The overwhelming majority of who seem to have especially taken upon themselves the cause of Indiana Wesleyan University's newest addition: ROTC.While it won't shock any of my readers that I am in favor of the program I have felt a strong desire to weigh in on the issue. Once again, I find myself struggling to fathom how liberal (though they would no doubt want to be called something else as Christians) minds can work. To quote Jack Nicholson from the movie As Good As It Gets when he was asked, "How do you write women so well?" Nicholson responds, "I take a man, then I take away all reason and accountability." I have taken this advice with liberals and found- shockingly- this same premise applies. Allow me to show how this praxis is true in the left:

1. During the last Presidential race we all heard John Kerry stating, "Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." Then we hear FROM THE LEFT that pulling out of Iraq may, "give the terrorists a sense of victory."- AP, mere weeks ago. Now the left controls the House and Senate and we are still waiting for their wisdom to shine through the "quagmire" of Iraq.

2. The value of human life. Libs love this term. They claim that they are against the war because it is killing our soldiers- hmmm.... okay, lowest causality of any war, ever; we disposed a genocidal dictator; are attempting to give their country back better and more democratic than before; providing more jobs... gee, I guess I'm just a glass-is-half-full kind of guy.Also to be noted: why are only soldier's lives valued and not unborn babies? Sorry, "fetus" (which is, of course, Latin for "baby").

3. The "Legislating of Morality" complaint. I sincerely hope to never hear this inane argument again. What is a law? A thing that tells people what they can or cannot legally do. Okay, therefore, you must believe that it is okay, beneficial, or providential to have those standards in place. Whether you make a law stating that abortion is okay and so is gay marriage or the polar opposite that law is based upon someone's moral compass (as close to a magnet as it may be).

Anyone, with any sense of history would be hard pressed to rationally hold the liberal’s company line- which really isn't a line anyway, it's more like a series of unconnected-special-interest-group strings.

So, now I shall turn onto the ROTC issue. The opponents of this particular move by IWU will gladly tell you that God not only calls people into the ministry to but to be doctors, cops, pharmacists, Wal-Mart workers (oh, right, liberals hate Wal-Mart so not that one), lawyers, and actors. Then, in the following breath they will speak against this "promotion of war" as one blogger put it.

Yes, God would not want us promoting war so let's get rid of doctors. Why doctors? You are promoting sickness, don't you know? Toss out the lawyers- they promote a racist, bureaucratic, system which depends upon people breaking the law. While we're at it we can chuck teachers because you are "promoting the illiteracy".

Personally, I want Christian cops and soldiers so that we do have some sense of higher morality and, maybe, even absolute truth in the midst of situations that may not be in God’s ideal will. The arguments against this on IWU's campus are only another example of liberal irrationality and "educationalism". See my below posts if you want to know more about at all that.

Educationalism

2006-09-15T06:33:00.000-07:00

Having spent some amount of time in our world of Internet debate, among those who pursue education, are present/future intellect giants, and- for the most part- value intelligent and logical debate I have noticed a disturbing trend.

This first tickle of this epiphany came to me while spending my first and only semester at a seminary in Kansas City. It grew to an itch as I strove to impact students lives at my church. And as a recent philosopher once said, "...it is like a splinter in your brain, driving you mad." Finally though, I have named it.

Educationalism. The obsession of one who wants only to know, to only study, to delve deeper and deeper into thinking, ideals, writings, degrees, and schooling, until any hint of daylight from the world of reality is considered irritating and low-brow. These bottom feeders of the intellectual world dive so deep that ideals become reality from a reality that they fear they cannot impact heavily enough. They sense the real world may be harsh and that hard decisions must be made, that someone may call you out on your effectiveness as a minister, and that, shockingly enough, some of your high-minded ideals may be immature and need to be refined.

The sufferers of this disease quote Barth, Kant, Tertullian, Bonheoffer, Lewis, Calvin, Wesley, Bounds, and Athanasius like they knew them personally and by standing on the shoulders of these giants they too will be a giant.

One of the most fatal flaws of this disease is that victims can rarely admit when it has besieged them and even if they do cannot admit that it is a problem and view it only as strength. They are the workaholic claiming that it is being done for a greater good while others look on and shake their heads at those unable to grasp the bigger picture. They look down on those who do not have the disease and say that they just haven't read this book, they don't believe what the church has always taught (while bickering among themselves as to what the church has always taught), that others have simply sold out their ideals, and that they aren't "Christ-like".

They, "Those who cannot do teach," and while this sentiment is not entirely true it is educationalism that birthed this statement. The victims will whine and moan about the system, declare it too corrupt to even work in, and decide that the greatest impact is to train up the next generation of leaders- thereby influencing far more than if they themselves tried to lead (or so they tell themselves). What they do not know, or cannot admit, is that for every true leader they influence they raise up fifty more like themselves who cannot do and only teach- thus the system begets itself, professors of seminaries begetting professors of seminaries instead of church pastors.

I want my generation to be one of action, leadership, integrity, and strength. Our knowledge would drive all of these things not be driven by them. So why are you pursuing knowledge, what are you going to do with it? Beware as you go of the ever lurking temptation of educationalism. When knowledge is not a means to an end but an end of itself.

What are We Going to Do?

2006-08-29T08:52:00.000-07:00

This was by far the busiest I have been during any given summer: I went full time with my church, applied to a new Master's program, was a dad, and initiated several youth programs throughout a given week. In the midst of all of this I read a book at the behest of my father called, Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. This work really made me contemplate two things: one, what was my philosophy of ministry to this point and; two, how was that philosophy playing out practically?

First, let me give the reader a two sentenced book report: Murrow comes at church from the understanding that the church has been geared to be sensitive, caring, and loving- however, these are things that the majority of men do not easily identify with. Further more, he says that to attempt and change men to be more effeminate does not behoove the church and endear us to men, whose wives/girlfriends/mothers have been trying to change their ways since day one.

This is my first tier of thinking. My second was in regard to a statistic that I had found most unsettling: that only 15-20% of students in youth ministry would one day be regular attendees at a given church (not that church attendance is a perfect barometer of spiritual growth). So as I was pondering both of these things they connected in single moment and things began to make sense.

One of the many reasons I love youth ministry is that you
do so much. You go on mission’s trips, hold concerts, workdays, events, and camps. You take teens paintballing, rock-climbing, and hiking where they connect with each other and, more importantly, God. You do.

Jesus went out, hiked in the wild places, ate, partied (loose definition, Wesleyans), preached, healed, sent his disciples on missions, challenged them, and even told them they would more than likely be killed. He did.

The church today does not do. Not by and large. We come together once a week and sing. The men feel useful if there is a building project they can help with but other than that they usher, serve on the board, and greet. That's it. They don't go on missions, aren't challenged to do great things.

This is the connection- I was so fearful that youth ministry was losing 80% plus of its students to a godless world because we (youth ministers) had failed to prepare them. While this could be the case in some instances I do think that, by and large, churches are challenging me or engaging them. Men in churches are supposed to be meek, yes, but the church today translates meek as quiet, soft, certainly not bold, daring, or outspoken. A church going man does not confront a friend on a sin pattern and tell him to knock it off- it's none of his business.

Our church has been, for several months now, talking about a women's ministry for women whose husbands don't come with them and are not Christians (much less the spiritual leader of their home). It had not struck me that there was no men's group for men whose wives don't come with them. It had not been discussed because there was no need for it. How sad.

I could not begin to tell you the number of times that my wife has asked me, "So what did you and J.T. do?" and I would tell her, "Played (insert favorite video game)/saw a movie/played a sport." And she follows up with, "Well, what did you talk about?" and I say, "Nuthin'." We did, and that was enough. We didn't sit and cry, discuss our inmost feelings, or talk about other relationships in our lives. Not that those things don't come up but for men the relationship must only be built by doing. We, as the church, need to engage men to stop losing them. We need to do.

The Thief Church and Law-Abiding Rapist

2006-05-02T07:30:00.000-07:00

Over the past years it has become painfully obvious to me why I have left many of the beliefs that I held in high school: because under careful scrutiny, prayer, and logic I have noticed that my early beliefs did not line up across the board. Let us take the banal example of abortion- everyone talks about it and everyone thinks they are right BUT... using a gross generalization we can state that most pro-abortionist are liberal and, in being liberal, are also environmentalist. Environmentalist, over the years have pushed for it to become a felony for someone to destroy an eagle egg. Okay, the eagles are endangered and I am okay with that- where this falls apart for them is that if you destroy an egg isn't that about the same as an abortion?

Thus the problem with our society becomes readily apparent. We can hold knowledge and even understanding without being able to apply those things to caustic thinking. i.e. "If a happens, then b naturally follows".

Glaring error number two: the church's recent struggle over homosexuality. Some churches boot them out others ordain them- marring the line between loving the sinner and hating the sin to where the sin no longer exists. Proponents of this move often site how in the Bible times homosexuality was considered a sin because it was love between a man and boy, not two consenting adults. Maybe.

However, isn't this like me saying that the Bible condemns stealing but never says anything about copyright theft of software. So I go out, steal my software, sell the ripped copy for dirt cheap and make millions, then go out and form the Thief Church where we support and ordain those who steal- as long as they don't steal like those in biblical times.

Yesterday, May 1st, was the protest of all illegal immigrants who want amnesty. They are protesting because they think they might be kicked out- as the law states they should. Whatever other issues lay here is pointless to my argument (though they would, no doubt, buttress it). The main issue is this, there is a group of people who, knowingly, committed a crime and now want the law which made the act illegal changed. Now THERE is a conflict of interests.

Next Monday there should be a protest put on by every rapist in the country stating that rape should be legalized and that they are being treated unfairly like criminals. If that happened though the government would swoop down and just nab all the rapist. Yesterday, a huge group of criminals came out and stated that they were criminals but CHANGE THE LAW NOW! Why didn't we go pick them up and ship them right back to where they came from- then bill all their countries for the expense.

The inability of the left (theologically and politically) to look at their beliefs in a cause and effect relationship is terrifying. I can shout all day long that socialism has been the downfall of every country who has tried it and they will still demand that the U.S. become socialist- because otherwise we aren't "compassionate". Reason and experience no longer hold place in their quadrilateral and they apply Scripture and Tradition throwing everything history has taught us to the wind.

The Roofless House

2006-04-18T13:24:00.000-07:00

If you scroll down my blog page and take a look over to the right side you will note that I have linked some one who has entitled themselves "religious right". I have done this for two reasons: first, to prove to everyone out there that I am not the most right-wing, conservative, Republican out there; two, to actually make a point through this piece. If you wish, take a break from reading this piece, visit his site, then come back and finish this piece- you will better appreciate it.

Religous Right

Come on- I even linked him here for you;)

Welcome back. For those of you who did not take me up on my offer, you should, but, to make a long story short, this particular individual thinks that the GOP is God's party, that all abortionists should be killed, and that all Old Testament Law is still, very much, still in effect. Why? Because of the verse where Christ states that not the least stroke of the pen would be negated because of His teachings and such. Therefore, we should not eat pork, shave our beards, wear mixed fabrics, meet on Sundays, get ear piercing, tattoos, drink alcohol (he equates all drinking with drunkenness) and all of the rest of the 3,700 odd laws laid out by the religious elders.

Out of perverse curiosity I wrote to the author and asked if he believed that Muslims would go to heaven since they obey the law but deny Christ sacrifice and resurrection- he stated that due to their obedience of the law and fear of God they would.

While this is all terribly interesting many of you are wondering what my point is. My point is that this author and others like him (some Christians) have missed entirely the point of legalism and of the Law. Allow me to steal an example from a friend and mentor of mine, Clark. Life is a lot like being in the midst of a storm in which rain is pelting you (rain drops being problems). If you subscribe only to legalism and the Law that is fine, they will protect from some types of drops and protect you well from those types of drops but they let many others through. However, if we view the Law biblically (Pauline epistles) then the Law becomes our teacher with which we build an umbrella. It is the concept not the rule itself that is the point.

Some of you disagree, don't you? I can hear you mumbling and plotting your responses from my terminal. Think about it though. This is precisely what Christ taught. Go to the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 6, 7). Here Jesus says repeatedly, "You have heard it said... but I say to you...". What adultery really means is not lusting, what stealing really is, covetousness, etc. This was the fulfillment of the law. Before it was simply pillars with no ceiling- the pillars blocked a little bit of the rain but when we see what holds them up then we see the true intent of the pillars- not to block the rain but to support the roof.

As Christians we should look to the Old Testament as just that, a testament to what God did in and through a certain group of people in a certain place. Yet the end story is not about that group of people or the laws God gave them but the fulfillment of His plan through His Son's sacrifice. To accept Christ's mission but ignore His purpose is to accept eternal life without ever knowing how to live this one.

My question to my legalistic, Law-abiding friends is this: have you thrown out the roof to seek cover under the pillars?

*I am not/was not attempting to provide an ad hominem, vitriolic diatribe against the site I linked but simple provide an example of the dangers of thinking that way*

A Softer Look

2006-03-20T10:18:00.000-08:00

First and foremost, I must apologize to my readers for being either too lax or too trepidatious to post for over a month. Due to some... much heated debate, I decided to take a little time off. But I am back; to the cheers of my fans and the chagrin of those I have not yet convinced.

Furthermore, I feel that I may (according to Mr. Wright-not "Right"- jokes, Kevin, you are one of my links on the side) have painted with "broad strokes" pacifism. That may be true but my question in regard to the larger roll of pacifism remains. Some of my readers may view my last writing in such a way that would paint me as a war-monger.

In my soul-searching month off I decided to read some other blogs and see where people were on this whole issue. I ran across one in particular whose name I shall forego in which he addressed the banal and often-raised question of, "If a man was raping your daughter/wife what would you do?" To which the blogger responded, "I would try to stop him without killing him and whether I succeeded or not that man would walk out of that room." Really? I think we as people often place ourselves mentally in situations that we do not really know how we would act. This is one of the foremost problems with North American pacifism- of any strand- very few of us have ever been in a situation that demands that type of response- thank God.

For instance, ideally, I would love to state that if someone was gave me the choice between my life and my faith that I would, without fight, give my life to show my faith. Do I know that I could do that? No.

The second problem with avoiding the fight is that the choice we make to do nothing is a violent choice within itself. We allow the killer to kill again, the rapist to rape again, the child molester to destroy another child, the terrorist to blow up another building (although they usually take themselves out), the warlord to conduct another "ethnic cleansing", and on and on we go. What do we accomplish when we allow violence to continue by becoming fodder for the slaughter?

Of course this is all hypothetical for all of us except for how we vote- conservatively or liberally- because we do not directly take out any of these people (most of the time and God forbid we are placed in that situation).

Recently I viewed a movie entitled "Lord of War". In the movie Nicholas Cage is an arms dealer who is unwilling to make any real moral decision because he is more concerned with money. In the end he is caught and released because the United States uses him as a front man in their illegal arms deals and he says; "The saying used to be, 'Evil prevails when good men do nothing,' it should be changed to, 'Evil prevails,'." This may be true because too few good men do nothing and thus choose to pass the responsibility and duty to someone else who may also try to pass it on until there is no good men left.

What is the tension that we must hold as Christians between being willing to die to gain in Christ- as the Apostle Paul was and eventually did- and not being an inactive participant in the perpetuation of violence in our world? Paul was concerned because he knew that the Kingdom of God would be better served if he stayed. When we continually "walk away" are we better serving the Kingdom? Or would we better served, at least some of the time, if we weeded out some of the evil so the good could flourish? These are decisions that we must personally make to affect and train our minds in how to respond like Christ in situations. It is not easy- but whatever we do, may we prevent evil from prevailing.

Christianity: The Man's Call to Fight

2006-02-13T10:45:00.000-08:00

This post has been on my mind for several weeks now and I have just let the idea set and percolate so that it will be fully ripe when addressed. Now, nearing spring it is time for the men among my readers to act on what it is I have to say and for the women to help hold them accountable: for God's sake, grow a pair. Seriously, or remember that you do have a pair. One of the two, it is up to you which needs to be done.

Let me explain. Recently a study was done that asked men who, among actors, did they most desire to be like. Overwhelmingly, the answer was John Wayne and Harrison Ford. Men's men. Warriors. Cowboys. Men of hard integrity and action.

It is now, in this moment that the reader should note that Heath Ledger (a cowboy of another persuasion) was not listed.

Let's not get lost in that last statement though because it was only a "for instance". What needs to be focused on though is the small but dangerous and growing movement of Christian pacifism/socialism/liberalism that is steadily gaining acceptance because of their championing the cry that their stance is "real Christianity" and anyone who disagrees has no compassion and is simply a member of popular "North American" Christianity (translation, they think we are a bunch of unthinking, rich, spoiled Americans who have not been exposed to reality).

Most prominent at this time is the subject of pacifism. Statements such as, "Real men walk away," and, "Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek?" and- my personal favorite-, "Pacifism is harder than fighting," abound and are accepted because of the theological guilt trip placed upon those who would disagree. Christians should not start fights because we are to live at peace as far as it is up to us. However, should a fight come looking for you the Bible seems to advocate finishing what was started (I even feel timirous to say for the sheer number of vitriolic notes a e-mails I will get regarding it). If it is a cause worth dying for it is a cause worth fighting for. Let us take a look at Biblical example: Exodus 32: 25-29 has the Levites go throughout their own camp and kill anyone- brothers, fathers, and sons included- who are against the Lord, I Kings chapter 18 has it that Elijah cut through the prophets of Baal like so much grass, II Kings shows Jehu killing seventy of Ahab's children and smashing the altars to Baal, and we could go on and on. The point is though that throughout the Bible it would seem that those who come against the Lord in force or by disobedience are killed by the sword or curse (take a look at Acts because, yep, it happens there too). Hence why the mere thought or mention of pacifism being the litmus test for a "true Christian" irritates me to no end.

This new movement is simply more of the feminization of Christianity and I am calling their bluff. It is simply more of an attempt to remove any sense of competition or war from a book that is chalk full of it. Many of these pacifists also argue that the Bible advocates socialism and the redistribution of wealth- "Because it just isn't fair that some people have more than others, Devin." Really? Where is it promised in the Bible or anywhere else that life is to be fair? Hmmmm?

One last thought: pacifism is not harder than fighting. Period. I would gladly die today because that would mean: a. no more pain and suffering for me; b. I would get to see my Lord; and c. this life is hard. How is it harder to give up than it is to struggle on for those you love? What, you say? "Christ gave up and died for us, was he a sissy?!" No, Christ was not a sissy, he fought for us the best way He could, by redeeming us and defeating hell- do you, by your death plan to redeem someone? That might be difficult, since, you know, you aren't Jesus (I guarantee that someone, even though I addressed it, will use this argument).

Pacifism is for those who will not do their duty to protect those who are under attack or cannot protect themselves. If God blessed you with money you should help those without, if He blessed you with spiritual understanding then teach those who do not understand, if He made you strong then protect those who are weak. Pacifism means that you are like Neville Chamberlain waiting for the Germans to pounce on London.

Agree or disagree with me, it does not matter. I will no longer tolerate advocates for a feminized Christianity- it is time for men to be men and stop acting like a bunch of women.

The "M" Word

2006-01-12T10:38:00.000-08:00

Prior to reading this post the readers should note the author's intent is not to be inflammatory or cause embarrassment to shed some light on issues that, as a youth worker, do come up. If the church's stance on sex is not explicitly defined then, as the Constitution has been treated, our chanting, "Don't until married," may leave itself open to interpretation.

In a recent discussion with a friend the topic of lust came about. This unnamed friend had worked for an unnamed camp whose director, who is well beyond their youth, informed them that any lustful thoughts or actions should be dealt with openly. But if they did struggle and shared it (like the camp requested they did) then their ability to return to this camp as leadership would be in question. In other words this camp is saying, "Tell us your very private struggles with pornography, lust, and/or masturbation and we will (probably) fire you." Nice.

We know that pornography is wrong- being pictures or videos that cause us to lust after men or women that we are not in a biblical relationship with. Yet when does lust (apart from pornography) actually begin? For instance, we have already determined that it is wrong to look at a woman and lust, Christ said to think lustfully about a woman is the same as adultery (Matt.5:27), but, the question has been put to me, what if I make up a woman/man (if you are a woman) and think lustfully upon my imagination? That man or woman does not exist so is it a sin to think of them lustfully? If you think it is still a sin then why? What if the thoughts take place in make-believe marriage relationship? Is that okay?

And if you think that the possibilities that were just raised as possible "righteous loopholes" are okay how far are you willing to take that? Is it okay to read dirty stories since the pictures are only in your mind? To look at dirty cartoons? They aren't real people so is that okay? But is that dwelling on what is pure (Philippians 4:8)?

Teens today see their peers getting sexually involved earlier and earlier. The average sexual experience takes place between twelve and thirteen now. A decade earlier it was fourteen. In the mid-eighties it was sixteen. Our culture is sex-ridden and our teens want specific answers to what was once a tabboo topic and is now discussed VERY openly in school classrooms around the nation. This openness, right or wrong, has caused teens today to be much more willing to ask questions of youth pastors, pastors, and mentors about sex- how will the church respond to this pressure? We could leave it up to the pastors to talk about their own personal convictions (and option that could lend itself dangerously to more legalistic or liberal perspectives) or we could attempt to set some official parameters on this thing.

So we can see that this issue of lust is not quite as clear cut as we would sometimes make it to be. Some may consider all of these questions to be legalistic or inappropriate in and of themselves but I do wonder of my critics, how old are you? Married? In touch with youth culture? Do you recall at sixteen the raging hormones and your church simply saying, "Don't," to sex and masturbation? Did you ever struggle with it? It is difficult to listen to the words of "wisdom" from someone who has never struggled with a particular sin. They simply sound like the professor who gave you the steps to building a mega-church but never pastored a church beyond the attendance of 100. They have not fought the battle nor are they fighting it so they should probably remain quiet on that particular subject.

Offending Others With Christmas

2005-12-20T08:31:00.000-08:00

During my undergraduate work I was having a conversation with a certain prof and began to express my concern with political correctness to which he quickly retorted, "Look, it is a small price to pay to get our message across,” I think not.

This year has been the year of the "Happy Holidays" battle. There are some stores and corporations who refuse to use the term "Christmas" in anything. There are "holiday trees", "holiday songs", "holiday breaks", and, of course, "happy holidays". I know that it is impolite to point fingers (a rule made up by guilty parties, no doubt) but I think that it is necessary. This is the left's attempt to remove anything that smacks of absolute truths, God, or "closed mindedness". The best case that in recent history is the capitol's "Holiday Tree" that was, this year, changed back to the Christmas tree.

To the best of my knowledge, no other holiday uses pine trees and the school systems do not plan their "Winter Breaks" around Hanukah. Christmas is celebrated by better than 85% of Americans, why does fifteen percent of the population attempt to dictate to the rest of us what will be done regarding our holiday? If they don't believe in Jesus and want to celebrate His birth, that is too bad and I pray for their conversion but do not tell me what to call our holiday.

The reality of political correctness is that it simply attempts to change the titles of things in order to make them seem better. They wish they could actually make the thing what they want but since they cannot they settle with re-titling it every few years. For instance, children with down-syndrome used to be called "retarded", then it was "mentally handicapped", then that was found to be too offensive so it was changed to "mentally challenged". Let me let you in on a little secret- they all meant the same thing.

The reason they are offended is because they cannot handle truth. They hate it that some people have dark skin and some have white, they hate it that their are fat people and skinny people, that some are rich and some are poor, that some believe in nothing and that most believe in God, they hate truth. If these people could they would make us all the same so no one would be offended by whatever ridiculous thing they find to cry about next. The irony of all this is that these same people claim to love "diversity". Yeah, sure you do. At least I can admit there are differences.

Change all the language you want but it does not change what the thing is- the essence of it. Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ- say "Happy Holidays" all you want while "Silent Night" plays in the background and your pine tree twinkles with lights. God forbid the ACLU ever gets educated and learns that the term "holiday" means "holy day" then it would be atheists only who this season "offends"- everyone else gets Christmas, Hanukah, and Quansa why can't the atheist have something?

Capitalism, the Hope of the Poor

2005-12-02T07:16:00.000-08:00

I usually abhor sequels but over the past few years the film industry has really done a much better job not pandering to the "encore effect" left by the first film. Today, I will attempt to do the same.

It would seem that more than a few individuals took exception to what I said last week (if you want to read some view the comments in "Invasion of the Mindsnatchers") and I would like to address my critics and my fans- maybe some of both will switch camps.

On more than a couple of occasions, in the short time-line of this blog, I have blasted the ideas underlying liberation theology. Continually I will get responses from those from this camp, the liberals, and some Democrats referencing Acts 2, Matt. 25, and other passages. They ask, "Devin, how can you be so judgmental, heartless, and uncaring?" I answer simply that I am not. I don't like to bring personal experience up in theology because I think that people are then simply looking for an emotional response to a head and spirit issue. However, I do community service, if I see someone begging I go and buy them dinner (really, ask my wife), I think soup kitchens, and faith-based aid are great things- BUT no economy will survive on socialist ideal.

The reason liberation theology will never work is that it basis itself on Marxism and is a dinosaur left over from the glory days of the USSR. The underlying thinking is that if we take from the rich and give to the poor then everyone will have the same amount. This is a false idea.

First, let us look at the U.S. economy. Despite certain political parties screaming that the end is near (referencing oil prices and the drop in the DOW), we are an economic upswing. Our average household income is higher, unemployment is the lowest (to my knowledge) of anywhere in the world (4%), and small businesses are doing great- due to new tax cuts not increased taxes.

Now, swivel your head to the right of the globe (Europe) and zoom in on Germany and France, the two countries who are the most anti-American in the UN and who are most often held up as an "example of progress" by the left. How is their unemployment, oh, between 30-40%? How is their "tolerance", oh, Muslims are rioting because they feel "oppressed"? How is their nation healthcare, oh, floundering? Gee, that whole socialism thing is failing AGAIN. Why is it that liberation theology (A.K.A. socialism, Marxism, communism) wants to bang its head against the same wall as Russian, France, Germany, Cuba, China, and Korea? They all failed. Oh, some of you don't believe it? Let's look at each one: Russia- no longer exists. France and Germany- I addressed that. Cuba- why do all their people risk life and limb to sail seventy miles on crappy boats to come to the U.S.? China- don't they oppress Christians, martyr, and maim them? Korea- same deal. Wow, you were right, socialism DOES work.

Now, why do I go to all this trouble of explaining the economics and anti-Christian stances behind all of these countries? Because I care for the poor in a better way than you (the left) do. When there are more jobs those who are poor can more easily find employment, there is more money then going into charity (when the economy is up people give more), there is also more money coming in from taxes (come on true leftists, you should LOVE that) which means more money to the welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and food stamps systems, and more money in tithing so churches can send missionaries to all of these oppressed nations you claim you love so much.

Really, if you believe in liberation theology, you should seek to overthrow oppressive dictatorships in South America, the Phillippines, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Cuba so that their people can thrive by working and bringing money into their country.

Idealistically, you (the left) have a wonderful plan- really, I am not being sarcastic. However, in reality, my stance is more practical and therefore, better. Yes, everyone should be a Christian, sell all of their possessions and give to the poor- but they're not and never will be. I really want to help the poor and do as much as I can- now, think about, do you?

Invasion of the Mind-Snatchers

2005-11-17T18:18:00.000-08:00

For those of you who don't know me that well or haven't taken the time to read my bio, I just graduated from Indiana Wesleyan University last spring. I was sick enough to think that I desired/needed/was called to do more schooling. So I applied to Nazarene Theological Seminary, Kansas City, MO. Many had told me- even a few of my profs and denominational leaders- that this was a good conservative Christian seminary and so off I went.

What I have found at NTS is a group of high-minded elitists who see anything capatilist, pro-life, defense-minded, right wing, or white as the epitomy of all evil. They are ready, however, to canonize such "theologians" as Freire, Gutierrez, Cone, and Isasi-Diaz. All of whom I would find much more convincing (and, frankly, Christian) if they would begin with the Word of God and not their own "experience".

Going out from IWU I had made the erroneous assumption that most Christians (and certainly most ministers) fell very near myself in their beliefs- both theological and political. Such is not the case. Yet I have also found that I like it this way. My beliefs have been challenged and I have had to do excess research to continue to buttress my agruements. If anything my own beliefs have become harder and stronger and it has brought me great joy to irritate my peers who lean to the left. Who abducted the Christians and replaced them with leftist, weak-willed, sissified, look-a-likes?

Several years ago Pope Benedict XVI who was, at the time, Bishop Ratzinger, stated that Liberation Theology was anathema. Let me, many years later, echo this statement. The idea of "social justice" (a misnomer- it should be "social mercy"- because justice implies what one deserves) is disgusting. It has nothing to do with Bible and even less to do with the Cross. In the past months I have been told that because I am not black, hispanic, poor, or a woman that I am an oppressor. Give me a break: one, I don't buy that; two, it has nothing to do with the Gospel. Christ promised us eternal life and for His Spirit to work within us and I have heard far too many "theologians" state that they "reject" any Gospel that does not deal with their liberation (from poverty and physical oppression) in this life. Well, they better start by leaving the Christian church- there is nothing for them here. At least not in the Bible and creeds I know of.

P.S. If this all sounds too extreme to be true simply read the following books: A Black Theology of Liberation by James H. Cone, In La Lucha by Ada Isasi-Diaz, or A Theology of Liberation by Gustavo Gutierrez- just for starters.

I am a Pro-Choice Christian

2005-11-03T07:36:00.000-08:00

The results are in, I have weighed carefully both sides of this heavily debated topic and decided- I am pro-choice. I think that the choice should be made to always carry the child to term and either keep it or put it up for adoption. I am definitely for that choice.

Some of you are saying, "Rose, that is not the pro-choice stance!" And I say, why not? Why does the left side of this argument get to use a euphemistic term when debating and the right side just comes out says "Pro-Life"? If they are really pro-choice then why do people from Planned Parenthood try to talk teenage girls into getting abortions rather than keeping the baby? If they really are pro-choice they would have their political stance and let doctors deal with patients.

There is a real problem for them if they do this though: statistics have shown that women who have abortions are more likely to suffer from depression, have dreams that their dead child comes to visit them, and can actually develop Post Traumatic Stress. Therefore, no doctor (except abortion clinic doctors) would recommend that their patient have an abortion except for those cases of rape, incest, or health risk to the mother- and those cases were allowed prior to Roe vs. Wade.

Within our current court system, our president has been appointing Supreme Court justices that are heavily conservative. In the midst of all of this there has been much discussion about Robert's and Alito's stance on Roe v. Wade and would they, if given the chance, overturn the decision. Dr. Keith Drury pointed out in one of his Tuesday columns (www.drurywriting.com) that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned the states still have to make the decision- and that is exactly right. But that is where the decision should have been left, it should have never become a federal matter and the only reason it did was because liberals know that most states wouldn't allow it (if you don't believe that take a look sometime of a "red state/blue state" map of the U.S.).

The reason I am pro-choice is that as long as the left does not have to say they are "pro-abortion" we can all state that we are pro-choice. Howard Dean made this infinitely clear in his interview with Chris Matthews- he could not/would not state that the Democratic Party is the Party of abortion. For that reason the right is as much pro-choice as the left; we simply chose life, again and again. What is their choice?

Why I Favor Oppression

2005-10-20T21:00:00.000-07:00

As we see the aftermath of the different hurricanes ravaging the southern area of the U.S. we have heard a great deal about "social justice" and the "oppression" of certain groups. Kayne West has accused George Bush of "hating black people", the Nation of Islam president stated that "being black in America is not an inconvenience but a death sentence", and Barbra Bush drew fire for stating that some of the people suffering from the hurricane had improved living conditions (she was referencing the homeless who now had consistent shelter, food, and clothing).

Certain groups have used the unfortunate situations in Louisiana to suggest that our country has a serious poverty and unemployment problem. They would cite the homeless numbers in New Orleans, their low per capita income, and high crime rate. What is overlooked in all of this is that this was a city and state that had been dominated by a group that favors Socialist programs under the auspices of aiding those less fortunate.

Certain members of the Wesleyan educational system would have you believe that raising minimum wage and taxes so that more money can be given away to those without education (they are in high supply and not so high demand) would be a solution to our problems as a society. How can a nation which, for so long, has denied religious ties- especially to Christianity- be expected to act in any other way than one that benefits the national economy? Why would the rich want to give their money for the same amount of work? Why would people desire education when they can make great money dropping out of high school because the government raised the minimum wage?

The tension of the worker doing the least amount of work for the most amount of pay and the employer paying the employee the least amount of money for the most amount of work and then selling the product at the highest cost with the lowest actual value is the tension that holds capitalism together. Just recently I stated to an individual well versed in economics that socialist systems were failures. He retorted that this claim was ridiculous because "look at France and Germany- they are based on socialist systems". Yeah, and Germany's unemployment rate is what? 30%? That would be nearly EIGHT TIMES that of the U.S. unemployment rate. Quick, let's be like Germany because obviously they are succeeding.

On a theological note: one cannot support the idea of "social justice" (a misnomer because "justice" indicates what one deserves") biblically. Paul writes in Romans 13:1-7 that we should submit to those in authority over us for "...there is no authority except that which God has established." Even if we are oppressed where does it say that we have the right to be otherwise? Matthew 5:39 tells us that we are to "turn the other cheek". The Bible is not a retalitory book but one of peace and submission. Our liberty, despite some radical theologians, is not one of this world but of the next. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus when both die. Does anyone, after reading that story, wish to have what the rich man did?

What is this all about then? Are we to tell those who suffer that it is simply their lot in life and maybe the next one will be better? NO! We are to love them, to help them, and to tithe to our churches to reach out to a hurting world. Educate an illiterate world, feed a starving one, heal the sick, teach them but, in God's name, don't read "social justice" into the message of Christ when you preach to them. That message is yours, not His.