search for righteousness

Sex in the Media

2011-12-06T09:21:00.002-06:00

I was challenged recently to seek the positive. Not to focus on the negativity that the news media thrives on and to that end I present a positive spin on Hollywood Finds Sin in Soda Ads, Not Televised Sex Scenes?

First there is the health issue about the sugar, the empty calories and the childhood obesity epidemic particularly among the lower socio-economic demographic. It is good that the media is concerned about this because, well frankly many of these children are deprived of other sources of entertainment and therefore watch a lot more television than they ought to because television can be free while swimming is not and many parents concerned for their children's safety keep them indoors to protect them from the neighbourhoods they live in.

Second, things have improved on the sex front. It is doubtful that anyone could make Pretty Baby or The Blue Lagoon today without repercussions from both Hollywood and the legal system. There may be more adult sex on television and film but there is far less overt child sex tolerated in the media. Further it is now routine to find someone who has found some hidden sexual message in what is supposed to be children's programming and publicized it; google 'Lion King sex' or 'Bugs Bunny penis'. The point is that as the medium has matured that it has become harder to produce such material and the child sex laws have changed enough that it is illegal to produce what was once legal.

Like I said focusing on the positive rather than being negative. Affirm what is righteous and do not unnecessarily reward with attention what is not.

What if God is using them to correct us?

2011-11-23T08:45:00.006-06:00

If one has had any sort of Christian indoctrination they are familiar with the idea of the still small voice. God does not scream, he whispers. God does not send his rebukes through the "credible" leaders rather he send them through the outcasts so that one must be attentive in order to hear it. He has a record of using animals, pagan nations, and shepherds (who I have been taught would have had a status close to that of niggers, with all the baggage attached to that word, in much of the history of mainstream American society). My point is what if God wants out of Christmas and he is using the Humanist, those whose message is most despised by the Church, to send his message to the Church?

Quite a few years ago I had the experience of being in a church service on either the last Sunday of November or the first Sunday of December where it began to rain inside the building (the new roof was inspected), there was evidence left on the pews and the floor, but not the ceiling. The response of the leadership was to set the morning's agenda aside and go with the flow, as it were. In the following week the senior pastor made the decision to set that Sunday aside until the new year and to pursue the Christmas program as planned; whatever happened that one Sunday died in December. The follow year I was in a different church in a different city, having moved over the summer, when a word from Amos was highlighted at the same time of year, I hate, I reject your festivals, and I will not smell [the sacrifices of] your assemblies.

What if God wants out and we are drowning him out with all our noise, both inside and outside the Church?

A Question of Commitment

2011-11-15T10:08:00.003-06:00

Over the weekend I finished reading Uncle Tom's Cabin; a book that Abraham Lincoln is said to have credited with starting the American Civil War. When I heard that I decided that I had no choice but to read the book.

But I did not find it that powerful. Maybe it is because I was reading it nearly 200 years after it was published. Maybe it is because I have a more secular mind than what the book was targeted at. Maybe I just have a hard heart. Regardless I did not find the book to be powerful enough to start a war.

But what book, what ideas would I find powerful enough to go to war over? It is no secret that I find the current Canadian government's justice policy to be as anti-Christian as Harriet Beecher Stowe found slavery but am I willing to declare war on the Canadian government? Is this a cross I am willing to die on? Am I literally willing to give my life for the cause of holy justice and the gospel?

Am I so committed to the absolute superiority of Judeo-Christian ideals that I am willing to publicly humiliate and expose the the so-called Christian politicians who disagree with me as charlatans and false prophets or be labeled as one myself and face public humiliation like a true martyr? Am I as committed to my cause and the purity of the gospel as Stowe was?

November 11

2011-11-11T15:50:00.003-06:00

Earlier today, as I was observing Remembrance Day in my own way, I discovered that November 11 is also date of the feast of St. Martin of Tours.

You can be forgiven if you are ignorant of St. Martin of Tours, that is if you are a protestant. Although I think more should be taught about the early saints and martyrs of the Christian faith, which is what my ultimate point will be.

But returning to St. Marin of Tours, it is very interesting, possibly even prophetic that the feast of St. Martin of Tours and Remembrance Day are both on November 11. This saint is famous for being willing to go into battle unarmed and wearing only a cross as his armour. He was a soldier in the Roman army who embraced Christianity after a vision in which Jesus thanked him for literally clothing [Jesus] as he sat on the side of the road posing as a beggar a day or so earlier. Upon his conversion he came to the conviction of that he could no longer take a life and so he offered to go into battle unarmed with only a cross around his neck to protect him; fortunately for him a peace treaty was signed before he had to make good on his offer.

His conversion brought about a radical change and a teaching that many could possibly use to learn today. We are called to be a peculiar people, radically and significantly different from those we associate with in the mainstream, or pagan culture. My concern, in fact it is becoming a conviction, is that our churches stand for virtually nothing today, and what they do stand for I fear they ought not to. There are great things that can be done using the economies of scale of a congregation but it seems to me most exist for the sake of existing and are having no impact on the society.

Part of this is because we are ignorant of those who have gone before us and what they stood and died for. The stories of the saints are the stories of people who did great things and the biblical ideas and conclusions that motivated them, something that I think we ought to discuss more often as we grow in and examine our own faith in more detail. Unless of course Tertullian was wrong and the blood of the martyrs was not the seed of the church.

What are the ideas, the convictions that those who went before us were willing to die for? As Protestants we know about the reformers, but what about those who kept the faith from the very beginning and up to the reformation? Why is more not taught about them and the theology they clung to that caused them to suffer for their faith?

Stephan Harper is a Fascist

2011-10-24T07:31:00.004-06:00

Fascism: A tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

Stephan Harper is a fascist. That is a statement of fact, he exercises strong autocratic or dictatorial control over his cabinet and therefore over the Canadian people.

He is dismantling the the Canadian Wheat Board against the majority vote of Canadian farmers, those who rely on it and have a vested interest in it. He is also pressing forward with his crime bill; Bill C-10 Safe Streets and Communities Act, a bill that has opposition from many who are in the know and it will directly effect, both police and people who work to rehabilitate criminals; a bill that contains policies that have been discredited or deemed too problematic (to cite one source) in other jurisdictions.

We are not even 6 months into his 4 year mandate and he is already showing signs that he is an ideologue who has no regard for what is best for the Canadian people. The lemmings voted for him and now they will pay the price.

I will give him this though, because all signs are that we are headed for a global economic crisis and if he leads us through it successfully he may go down as the greatest Prime Minister we ever had but equally so he may go down as the worst. But regardless I stand by my accusation that he is a fascist, albeit an unintentional one.

Ashamed

2011-10-24T07:08:00.006-06:00

I have recently hit a new low in my so-called Christian experience. I think I am ashamed to be an evangelical, in fact I think I want to renounces the adjective.

I have been watching the Republican nominations with great interest and I in no way want to be associated with those people. So much so that I would probably even renounce Christianity if I did not think that the Holy Spirit would just go and drag me back.

The ideas and the policies being put forth are nothing short of a proverbial middle finger at scripture. I find it strange that those who are most concerned about hell and doctrinal purity are those who are the least concerned about doing what Jesus said they need to do to avoid being sent there. The cold, hungry, thirsty stranger mentioned in Matthew 25 could more accurately be translated as the the illegal or undocumented Mexican. Those who are most concerned about hell want to shoot and kill illegals, or Jesus, as they cross into the United States. I guess Kris Kristofferson is right Jesus really would just get nailed up if he came down again.

Homosexuals are people. I may disagree with their identifiable behaviour but that is nothing new for me, in fact it is normal. I am a corrections chaplain, I regularly deal with people whose identifiable behaviour I have problems with. I am less concerned with keeping homosexuals from marrying than I am with being able to befriend them and not being a barrier to the Holy Spirit working in their lives, which is what I fear public condemnation does - turns them off of the Holy Spirit before they even have a chance to encounter him.

Those who claim to be the most devout followers of the man who dared to touch the lepers are now the ones who condemn the lepers. I know a man who is struggling to find his place in this society, a modern day leper. He is a registered sex offender, a homosexual paedophile, and when I have asked, begged actually, for help from the evangelical community I have been met with indifference at best and hostility at worst. Meanwhile a friend and colleague of mine, a minister who denies the virgin birth and other “core” doctrines, has had no problem getting help from her community. Like I said I am ashamed.

The last point I should address is why this matters not only in the United States but globally. Unless I am mistaken, the largest Christian publishing houses in the world are all located in the United States, as are the most prolific and influential authors. Unwittingly, but nonetheless certainly, the vile poison that the American political system has become is infecting Christianity and particularly it’s more conservative variants. For about three years now I have been asking pastors and other Christian leaders to name me three well known and respected Christian authors who are not American citizens I have yet to have one pastor or leader answer my question.

Just as the protestants of old were, and some still are, concerned about Rome’s influence on Christendom so too must we be concerned about the influence American politics has on Christendom.

At the risk of being accused of plagerism (again)

2011-08-21T07:06:00.005-06:00

A 'Christian' Europe Without Chrisitanity

By David Gibson Religious News Service

(RNS) Does European Christendom need Christianity to Survive?

It may seen an odd question for a religious culture that once stretched from Britain to the Bosphorus, born of a deep and diffuse
faith that inspired great cathedrals and monasteries and filled them with believers for centuries.

But when right-wing extremist Anders Breivik killed 77 people in a horrific rampage in Norway last month, he highlighted a novel
development in the history of the West: a burgeoning alliance between believers and nonbelievers to promote Europe's Christian identity.

"European Christendom and the cross will be the symbol in which every cultural conservative can unite under in our common defense," Breivik wrote in his rambling 1,500-page manifesto. "It should serve as the uniting symbol for all Europeans whether they are agnostic or atheists."

Whether Breivik himself can be considered a bona fide Christian given his lack of a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God," as he put it, was a topic of much debate. There was no doubt, however, that he was a devout believer "in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform."

In fact, that's been the case for any number of unbelievers for more than a decade.

One prominent example was the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, who spent her last years before her death in 2006 inveighing against a Muslim influx that was turning the continent into what she called "Eurabia."

Fallaci liked to describe herself as a "Christian atheist" -- an interesting turn of phrase -- because she thought Christianity provided Europe with a cultural and intellectual bulwark against Islam.

There's also Scottish-born historian and political conservative Niall Ferguson, who calls himself "an incurable atheist" but is also a
vocal champion for restoring Christendom because, as he puts it, there isn't sufficient "religious resistance" in the West to radical Islam.

(Ferguson dedicated his latest book, "Civilization: The West and the Rest," to his new partner, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born Dutch atheist who has promoted the values of Christianity over those of her native Islam.)

The modern-day crusade for Christendom by nonbelievers tends to be rooted in fears about Muslim immigration, but it's also fueled by worries about the deterioration of European culture -- and nostalgia for the continent's once central place in world affairs.

For some atheists, retaining European identity is reason enough to set aside long-standing enmity between churches and nonbelievers that dates back to the secularism of the Enlightenment and the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution.

And unlike the persistent sniping between atheists and believers in the U.S., Europe's nonreligious conservatives have found ready allies in the continent's religious leaders -- most notably Pope Benedict XVI.

Even before he was elected pope in April 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was spearheading the Vatican effort, however unsuccessful, to have the European Union's new constitution recognize the continent's Christian heritage. He also rejected the idea of allowing Muslim Turkey into the EU. "Europe is a cultural continent," he told a French magazine, "not a geographical one."

As pope, Benedict eventually softened his opposition to Turkey's entry into the EU but continued to insist that Europe's Christian
culture must be protected, even as religious belief among Europeans declined.

In August 2005, just a few months after his election as pope, Benedict met secretly with Fallaci, news that upset Muslims when it
leaked out. Muslims were even angrier at the pontiff's controversial speech a year later in Regensburg, Germany, when he depicted Islam as prone to violence and alien to Christian Europe.

"Attempts at the 'Islamification' of the West cannot be denied," Benedict's closest aide, Monsignor Georg Ganswein, said in a 2007
interview. "And the associated danger for the identity of Europe cannot be ignored out of a wrongly understood sense of respect."

"The Catholic side sees this clearly," he added, "and says as much."

But some atheists see this as well, and are equally happy to say so.

One of Christendom's most prominent atheist advocates is the Italian philosopher and politician Marcello Pera. In 2004, he delivered a series of lectures with then-Cardinal Ratzinger that set out their shared view of the need to restore Christian identity in Europe in order to battle both Islam and moral degeneration.

Later, Benedict wrote a forward to Pera's book, "Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians," which promotes Benedict's argument that Western civilization can be saved if people live "as if God exists," whether they believe that or not.

It's not a new argument -- 17th-century French philosopher Blaise Pascal held that even if God's existence cannot be proved, people ought to act as though God exists because they have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

But the updated version seems to be winning some converts. In a landmark ruling last March, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Italy could continue to display crucifixes in public school classrooms because the cross with Jesus on it is a "historical and cultural" symbol rather than a religious one.

While the Vatican welcomed that decision, others wonder whether the cost was too high -- essentially emptying a container of its meaning in order to preserve the cultural form.

And an empty container, no matter how attractive on the outside, can be filled with all manner of beliefs on the inside.

What was Warren Jeffs Sin?

2011-08-21T06:39:00.001-06:00

In August 2011 Warren Jeffs was convicted of polygamy and paedophilia. But what was his sin? According to scripture it seems that neither hebephilia, sex with a sexually mature minor - which is actually what Mister Jeffs is “guilty” of, nor polygamy are sins. When this was pointed out to a wised old saint this author knows the saint pointed out that the church has their values screwed up, we are gracious towards divorce, which scripture condemns, and condemning towards polygamy, which scripture seems to allow.

Mister Jeffs conviction coincided with Genesis 28 in an exercise this author’s Bible study group is doing. An exercise that began with Genesis 1 and that forbids us from citing or discussing any scripture found after where we had previously read; in other words we are studying scripture as if we are being exposed to the Bible for the very first time. In light of this, what was Warren Jeffs’ sin?

Among the patriarchs we have Abraham, the dirty old man who married a much younger woman, Keturah, and fathered more children. We also have Isaac who was 40 when he married Rebekah, who was in all likelihood 20 years or more his junior. She was a young maiden when they married and it seems that Jacob and Esau’s conception 20 years later was only a miracle because she had been unable to conceive to that point, unlike Sarah who conceived well past menopause. Finally we have Esau, who although not technically not a patriarch is from the same line. It does not seem that his polygamy is condemned in any way, just mentioned as a fact, like his excessive red hair.

So the question remains what exactly is Warren Jeff’s sin? He did nothing that Abraham, Isaac or Esau did not do; we esteem these men as forerunners of our faith but condemn Warren Jeffs for the same behaviour? How is polygamy a sin? How is hebephilia a sin? God/the Bible says nothing derogatory about these men’s behaviour and yet thousands of years later we consider these men’s behaviour such a grave sin that those who follow in their footsteps deserve to die in prison.

This is not a defence of either hebephilia or polygamy, but rather a question poised; “Why does modern Christian thought consider behaviours God seem indifferent to, polygamy and hebephilia, to be grave sins while being gracious to to a sin God says he hates, divorce?”

The Jewish View of Creationism

2011-01-02T15:47:00.002-06:00

Rabbi Adam Jacobs
Managing Director, Aish Center in Manhattan

Few adjectives produce more of an emotional charge than "fundamentalist." It conjures up images of unhinged radical mobs in neuvo-Klan attire (indiscriminately) firing their AK-47's in the air, or of barefoot ignoramuses clutching their Bibles and getting excited to head off to the town lynchin'. Regrettably, there are far too many folks -- both inside and outside the religious camps -- with a sub-par comprehension of the actual fundamentals of religious thought and practice. This lack of knowledge tends to feed the stereotypes that the non-religious world perceives. Within the fundamentalist/secularist battle that has been flaring across the world stage for the last 200 plus years, there is perhaps no greater flash point than that of creationism, as was recently evidenced in the 27,000 comments made in a recent HuffPost piece on the topic.

To the secularist, the notion that we should flippantly toss aside hundreds of years of scientific investigation unequivocally demonstrating an extremely old universe simply because some ancient tome says it was created less than 6,000 years ago is nothing short of idiocy. What I hope to demonstrate is that Judaism's understanding of this matter (and many others) is significantly more nuanced, complex and surprising than what is currently believed to be the standard religious gloss on the subject. The truth of the matter is that Judaism is frequently (and unfairly) lumped together with other religious systems that actually have vastly different ways of looking at things.

One thousand years ago, the great Jewish philosopher and physician, Moses Maimonides, wrote that there is no contradiction between Torah and science and that if one is perceived, then there was a misapprehension of the science or the Torah. Two centuries later, Rabbi Isaac of Akko, a disciple of the great Moses Ben Nachman (Nachmanides) and one of the foremost Kabbalists of his generation, wrote some surprising commentary regarding the age of the universe. In his work "the Trove of Life," he explains that the Earth was actually 42,000 years old when Adam was created and that these years are "divine" years and should not be thought of as 365 regular days. Rather, a divine year is 1,000 times longer or 365,250 years. He based this on a verse in Psalm 90 that says "1,000 years in your eyes is like a day gone by." Do the math. According to Rabbi Isaac, the universe is 42,000 x 365,250, or 15,340,500,000 years old. This figure is squarely within the ballpark of where modern cosmology places the age of the universe. How did he know this? And how did he posses the temerity to conclude it in the midst of the Dark Ages? Perhaps our fundamentalism is not quite as primitive as is supposed.

Dr. Gerald Schroeder, an Ph.D. in physics from MIT, has spent the last 35 years investigating the confluence of science and Torah and has a novel, yet compelling, approach. Starting with Einstein's discovery of the relativity of time, he explains how great changes in gravity or velocity produce measurable changes in the flow of time. He demonstrates that on an imaginary planet so massive, with a force of gravity so great, that its time was slowed by a factor of 350,000, a visitor would live out three minutes of normal-feeling time while concurrently, the folks back home would have lived out an entire two years. Looking from Earth, the actions of the "big planet" visitor would appear to be unfolding extremely slowly, and vice versa from the other vantage point. Big Bang theory posits that the entire universe at its inception was but a minuscule speck. This notion was supported and recorded by Nachmanides in the 13th Century when he explained that the universe was originally condensed into the size of a mustard seed. As the universe expanded (again, a notion supported by both science and Torah), time expanded with it so that every time it doubled in size, time would pass at half its original rate. Following this logic, Dr. Schroeder demonstrates that it is perfectly conceivable that from the universe's perspective, six 24-hour periods had passed and concurrently the dilated outer reaches of that space would view it as if 15 billion years had elapsed. Have a look at his book The Science of God for the full treatment, including charts outlining the exact duration of each Biblical day.

I understand that it will be irresistible for some to label this approach as "apologetics," "reverse engineering" or worse. Bear in mind that true intellectualism requires us to remain open to new ideas that don't fit neatly into our current worldview. Most people are so wholly invested in their way of thinking that no amount of evidence would suffice to disavow them of it. Nonetheless, there are still some brave souls out there with the courage to take a second look. These ideas are old, based on the writing of well known and established Jewish scholars, who in turn learned them from more ancient sources. These sources depict an origin of the universe that is clearly, and uncannily, similar to that of modern cosmology and quite unlike the views of some "fundamentalist" religions out there. And when these sources have in the past conflicted with the cosmological thinking of the time, it is often the science that has evolved to an understanding closer to that of the religious. The Big Bang Theory, for example, positing that the universe is expanding infinitely from a single point, was quite controversial. Since the 1960s, that theory has been largely accepted as scientific fact.

That should give us pause. Science and religion have different functions in our lives, but they are not necessarily and always in opposition. Do your own research. If it's true, then integrity demands a re-evaluation of the value (of at least one) fundamentalist religious system.

A Thought Just Occurred To Me

2010-12-28T11:46:00.002-06:00

It has been a few years now since I had my seminal experience with regard to my understanding of God's opinion of Christmas. It has also been over the same number of few years that I have been wrestling and coming to terms with the idea that I may possess the gift of prophecy.

It is also during these years I have also been exposed to a song by Craig Ginn, a song with the lyric, "and we called the prophet a fool". What is my point? I am not saying I am correct about Christmas, but I do need to follow my own conscience; however what is to say that people do not need to stop, look, and inquire of God?

I feel like I am called a fool, or in the words of my father, "A God Damned Fool." I find myself having to cut myself off from fellowship because the alternative is to have something I have concluded God calls an abomination shoved down my throat.

I reiterate again, I am not saying I am absolutely correct. However am wondering if God has called me to this to draw attention to the fact most are more in love with tradition than scripture. We have no Biblical basis for the celebration and every year the religious seem to make a greater effort than the year before to "Keep Christ in Christmas" while I am asking, "Does Christ even want to stay in Christmas?" One of the biggest errors that reformist (meaning virtually all Protestant) thought levels at Catholicism is that they place tradition above scripture and so now I am asking, are "Protestants becoming Traditionalists like the Catholics?" Or to put it another way, "Are the Protestants becoming what they protest they are not?"

2010-12-11T12:47:00.002-06:00

The following paragraph is has been lifted from an article that discusses another topic entirely, a topic one needs to read the article to understand. But the following paragraph captured my thoughts.

Some time ago, I asked an ultra-orthodox Rabbi and politician named Avraham Ravitz -- he headed an ultra-orthodox party and was a powerful member of the Knesset -- why he had boycotted a dairy company that had introduced a line of kid's yogurts and puddings with dinosaur mascots. He chuckled when I asked if he doubted that dinosaurs had once existed. Of course not, he assured me, and it didn't concern him a whit that they didn't appear in Genesis, as it was crazy to read Genesis literally in any case. "It's just, who wants to explain the subtleties of biblical hermeneutics to your kids over breakfast, before you've even had your coffee?" For Ravitz, the problem with science isn't what it makes you believe, it's what is makes you do, sometimes even before your morning coffee.

The point is, for the better part of 2 millenniums Christianity has been divorced from it's Jewish roots, to the point where Jews do not even recognise Christianity as a Jewish cult or some perversion of Judaism, like most "Christians" view Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses. But we will take dogmatic stands based on scripture with no understanding of the Jewish historical thought on the subject. The phrase ultra-orthodox indicates that the speaker is the Jewish inequivalent of a KJV only pastor, with regards to how far his community cuts themselves off from mainstream society.

Clearly he thinks that anyone who subscribes to a literal view of Genesis is a fool. Remember this is not some ultra-reformist Rabbi, but rather a spiritual descendant of the Pharisees! Rabbi Ravitz's view of Genesis creation may be closer to that of Paul's than most modern-day Christians. I have known for some time now that the Jewish view on abortion is neither pro-life nor pro-choice; there seems to be no concept of individual rights in Judaism. The question that is asked is what is in the best interests of the community, so an infant can be aborted if it is deemed that that is what is in the best interests of the community - think hiding with a crying baby in Nazi Germany. However the same child can not be aborted for having downs because that abortion may not be in the best interests of the community.

(Abortion is the correct word in both contexts above because it seems that a child was not considered born until it was weaned - it had to be able to survive independent of it mother for food until that point seems it was considered a foetus.)

My point is, "Is it possible to have a correct understanding of scripture apart from studying the teachings of, at the very least, the ancient Rabbis; meaning those who wrote during and prior to the first century?" I ask this question because I fear the Biblical writers can not be understood outside of the context in which they were writing and the only way to understand that context is to read the writings and thoughts of their contemporaries.

Who understands the mind of God?

2010-05-08T20:24:00.002-06:00

Sometime ago I mentioned some dear friends of mine on here and now, 22 months later, God has made the very decision that had me confused. God has decided that she who was healthy her entire life should join him, while he who was born sick should live on.

I am not even sure how to respond, I just know that I have a funeral to attend very shortly.

A Biblical answer to...

2010-01-08T11:20:00.006-06:00

why we do not practice capital punishment for murder, rape, being a homosexual or any other Mosaic offense.

In one word, Pentecost.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

The sins resulting in death remain sins, but blood sacrifices ended at Pentecost, the law was fulfilled. The crucifixion (Nisan 14 30C.E.) first fulfilled the need for animal sacrifices and exposed the Holiest of Holies to all men. (Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45, Matthew 27:51) Then 52 days later, 49 days (7 days x 7 weeks) after the resurrection (Nisan 17 C.E.), came Pentecost (Sivan 6 30 C.E.) (Acts 2).

By sending us the Holy Spirit, God fulfilled his need for human blood over capital crimes. His new remedy is to redeem the person and then fill the person with his Holy Spirit. This is further demonstrated, dare I even say punctuated, by the fact that he called one of the most notorious serial killers of that era to not only be his mouth piece to that generation, but every generation to come through authoring most of what we now call the New Testament.

Pointless

2009-12-01T11:34:00.000-06:00

I am sitting here in my little kiosk watching darts on TSN in jump.ca's window and first I became amazed, in awe actually, of at this one guy then I realised how pointless his life must be if he has sacrificed and worked so hard to become as good as he is at darts.

And yes my life does seem pointless as I sit here in my kiosk but it only until Christmas.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

I just got hit on...

2009-11-25T14:43:00.001-06:00

By a dude!!

And he was blatant about it, "I'll come back later and hit on you some more, if you don't mind".
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

In writing

2009-11-08T17:48:00.000-06:00

This is the public record of my prediction that Josh VanLoon will have had enough of being above his parents and will want to move back to the basement no later that January 5 2011.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Yet Another Theological Idea from my Twisted Mind

2009-11-02T16:31:00.004-06:00

Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

I read this passage the other day and realised that in context Paul was talking about what we call the Old Testament, because that was all they had. So often I think we read this New Testament passage and then use it to support some New Testament concept, and that is not entirely wrong, but it is clearly taking the passage out of context.

A better reading to the modern Christian mind, just to remind us that the Old Testament is what Paul was referring to would be:

[The whole Old Testament] is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

This means that all of:

Genesis is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Exodus is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Leviticus is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Numbers is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Deuteronomy is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Joshua is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Judges is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Ruth is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

1 Samuel is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

2 Samuel is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

1 Kings is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

2 Kings is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

1 Chronicles is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

2 Chronicles is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Ezra is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Nehemiah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Esther is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Job is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Psalms is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Proverbs is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Ecclesiastes is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Song of Songs is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Isaiah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Jeremiah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Lamentations is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Ezekiel is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Daniel is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Hosea is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Joel is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Amos is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Obadiah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Jonah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, including 2:10.

Micah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Nahum is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Habakkuk is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Zephaniah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Haggai is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Zechariah is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Malachi is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

What does the Gospel mean to you?

2009-09-01T18:03:00.003-06:00

I hope I am not just a jumble of thoughts but a coherent messenger of the heart of God.

What does the gospel mean to you? I am not asking for the "correct" answer, if anything I am ultimately arguing that the "correct"answer is the wrong answer. What does the gospel mean to you, [insert your name here]? The next question is what can I do to help make the gospel a reality in your life?

I have been coming to some revelations of late and one of them is that I have my own understanding of the gospel. I have worked out my faith (Phil 2:12) and I have known what God requires of me for many many years but I believe I have been both overtly and covertly counseled against doing those things that the gospel requires of me. But the real question I am asking now is how many others are in the same boat and how many I have discouraged from persuing what God is calling them to.

What would it look like if we counseled people to do what they think God is calling them to instead of cautioning them away? What would it look like if we chose to stand on guard and bless someone when they chose to something "stupid" for God, caring more about their faith than the temporal concerns we caution them about?

How many great things could men and women have accomplished because they were motivated by the Gospel, as they understand it, but did not because someone counseled them away from the Gospel, as they understand it?

A Revelation

2009-08-16T13:37:00.002-06:00

As I was sitting listening to yet another pointless message this morning I realised that I no longer attend church on a weekly basis because I want to, or because I long for fellowship. I attend because it is the least unrighteous thing I can think of to do on a Sunday morning.

Before I go further I should clarify that I am not calling the message itself pointless, I am calling preaching in general pointless.

It's crowded in a worship today
As she slips in
Trying to fade into the faces
The girls' teasing laughter is carrying farther than they know
Farther than they know

But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?

And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them
There is a way? There is a way?

A traveler is far away from home
He sheds his coat
And quietly sinks into the back row
The weight of their judgmental glances tell him that his chances
Are better out on the road

But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?

And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going
Why is His love not showing them
There is a way?

But Jesus paid much too high a price
For us to pick and choose who should come
And we are the body of Christ

But if we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?

And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them
There is a way?

If we are the body
Why aren't His arms reaching?
Why aren't His hands healing?
Why aren't His words teaching?

And if we are the body
Why aren't His feet going?
Why is His love not showing them
There is a way? As Jesus is the way

This song kept resonating through my mind as I listened to yet another messsage about how we need to just humble ourselves, let go and let God reign in our lives. But there was no "rubber", it was a nice airy message intended to encourage the saints a little without really convicting anyone of their own unrighteous. No clear stand was taken, just a pleasant message intended to encourage us to abandon unrighteous thinking patterns without actually identifing what those are, or what tangible actions we ought to be taking to reinforce a change in our thinking patterns which in turn will result in a permanent change in our behaviours.

You sit there don't care twiddling your thumbs
You don't mind to waste your time contemplate the air
There's no life it ain't right the passive state you're in
Apathetic yeh pathetic can't you see it's sin

You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy
You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy in the first degree

You might be lost might be found doesn't make a difference
Sleepwalking you're just jive-talking obviously indifferent
What'd you care if the world gonna burn
With millions going to hell
You might be with them or maybe you won't
But it' sure hard to tell

You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy
You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy in the first degree

It's easy to realize
Much a' the world has closed its eyes
Sometimes I cry
For Christians to care at all
It's sure Jesus cares
Wasn't passive that's sure
In the comfort seeking church
He calls us to share the hurt

You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy
You're being judged
And righteously
The sentence is passed
It's apathy in the first degree

Apathy in the first degree

Wake up, wake up

We are called to be radically and significantly different from the culture around us and really we are not. In truth most of us operate on the same values that a person finds in the business world, or the social work office, or on our television sets, we might be a step or two more holy but in reality it is the difference between toilet water that has been polluted with urine and toilet water that has been polluted with feces.

Truth be known I can hardly stand the stench of my own hypocracy and I am beginning to gag on the combined stench of a congregation.

Where have we been and where are we goin'
And who really cares?
A trip to the moon, a tryst in the desert
We fall down the stairs

Somebody wins, and somebody loses
It's up to you
Someone's fool and someone is a fighter
You get what you choose

Moses to Paul, Samson to Delilah
It's all the same
You sell out or you put out
And it ain't no game
Scars on our hearts and mud on our faces
On network tv
A passion for success, a love affair with money
It's time to get on our knees

All the talk in the world
It don't mean nothin'
Even when intentions are good
God send His Son to make us be honest
Not just to make us feel good
Nothin' is worse than a self-centered liar
And sometimes that's me and you
But for everyone involved we gotta change
That the world can know He is the Truth

I long for action that reinforces the thoughts that set me apart, but I am so trapped in cultural unrighteousness that I can not see the way out and frankly I can not see anyone else that can lead me out either; only the blind leading the blind.

I hold on to my faith not because I value God, well meaning but misguided individuals long ago stripped me of any love or value for God. I hold on to it because I gives me some sense of meaning or purpose, the hope, no the promise that as a group we can change the world by changing individual lives. But I feel like I have been sold a bill of goods because I do not believe the gospel has really changed my life all that much and nor has it lived up to it's promise for others. Returning to the toilet water analogy, all that has happened is that the fecal matter has been removed, but the fecal residue and urine remain in the toilet water that is our lives.

I want the spring of living water promised in scripture or I want out of the faith and the freedom to pursue my passions before I am condemned to hell because the way I see it no toilet water is going to be allowed through heaven's gates.

The desire to live differently exists, but I lack the road map and I have been stripped of the trust necessary for someone to guide me to where I want to go; even if such a person exists.

WARNING: Your Brain Will Hurt!!!

2009-06-29T16:52:00.007-06:00

We protect, sacrifice and are even willing to endure torture for those things that are precious to us, our children for one and our possessions for another. Now holding your possessions as precious is not entirely wrong. My sister in-law would probably protect, sacrifice and endure torture on behalf of her piano. She is not materialistic but she does make her living teaching piano so her piano is precious to her and therefore arguably it is a necessity for her and worth suffering for.

But do we feel the same way about the gospel? The gospel is an idea but is it precious enough to us to need to be protected, sacrificed or tortured for? If the Gospel were a person what would you be willing to do to for it? The Gospel is a person, Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus is no more the Gospel than Barak Obama is currently the president of the United States of America. Barak Obama is the President and there are people that are sworn to protect, sacrifice and endure torture on his behalf, but it is not the man, but rather the office that they were sworn to; the idea that Barak Obama is the President of The United States of America. Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, but what really matters is the idea of the Messiah; the Gospel which is God's plan to reconcile men to himself. To clarify, just like the President of the United States of America is an office, so too is the Messiah and just like Barak Obama's extraordinary value comes from his being the President so does the extraordinary value of Jesus of Nazareth come from his being the Messiah.

We are not called to be loyal subject of Jesus, we are called to be loyal subjects of the Messiah (the one who brings the Gospel) and that loyalty is what is supposed to cause us to be loyal subjects of Jesus. So the question I am putting before you is not how much do you love Jesus, but how much do you value, how much do you love and how loyal are you to the idea of the Gospel, God's plan to reconcile men to himself?

Is your loyalty to the man Jesus, or to the Messiah? If somehow it was discovered that Jesus was not the Messiah but rather it is someone else would you still be loyal to the Gospel, the idea that men can be reconciled to God? In many if not most of the cases of persecution this is the crux of the matter. Muslims kill Christians because they believe that Muhammad teaches the correct way to be reconciled to God and that is often the basis for a Muslim to convert to Christianity; they have concluded that it is Jesus and not Muhammad that teaches the correct way for a person to be reconciled to God. The Catholic Church persecuted the reformers because the Catholic Church believed that they taught the correct way to be reconciled to God, no one was arguing about Jesus being the teacher, but rather about how to interpret the teacher.

I will admit this is heady stuff because the only way to answer the question is to force the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah away from the idea that there is a way for a person to be reconciled to God. Then a person can step back for a moment and ask where their loyalty lies and if a cult of personality has been built up around Jesus which has undermined the Gospel.

Comments Anyone??

2009-06-09T08:19:00.002-06:00

As Professor Jeffrey Steeves says at the end of every class,

"Questions? Comments? Slurs? Innuendos?"

Gun-loving pastor to his flock: Piece be with you
By DYLAN T. LOVAN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 4, 5:50 pm ET

LOUISVILLE, Ky. – A Kentucky pastor is inviting his flock to bring guns to church to celebrate the Fourth of July and the Second Amendment.

New Bethel Church is welcoming "responsible handgun owners" to wear their firearms inside the church June 27, a Saturday. An ad says there will be a handgun raffle, patriotic music and information on gun safety.

"We're just going to celebrate the upcoming theme of the birth of our nation," said pastor Ken Pagano. "And we're not ashamed to say that there was a strong belief in God and firearms — without that this country wouldn't be here."

The guns must be unloaded and private security will check visitors at the door, Pagano said.

He said recent church shootings, including the killing Sunday of a late-term abortion provider in Kansas, which he condemned, highlight the need to promote safe gun ownership. The New Bethel Church event was planned months before Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in a Wichita church.

Kentucky allows residents to openly carry guns in public with some restrictions. Gun owners carrying concealed weapons must have state-issued permits and can't take them to schools, jails or bars, among other exceptions.

Pagano's Protestant church, which attracts up to 150 people to Sunday services, is a member of the Assemblies of God. The former Marine and handgun instructor said he expected some backlash, but has heard only a "little bit" of criticism of the gun event.

John Phillips, an Arkansas pastor who was shot twice while leading a service at his former church in 1986, said a house of worship is no place for firearms.

"A church is designated as a safe haven, it's a place of worship," said Phillips, who was shot by a church member's relative for an unknown reason and still has a bullet lodged in his spine. "It is unconscionable to me to think that a church would be a place that you would even want to bring a weapon."

Phillips spoke out against a bill before the Arkansas General Assembly that would have permitted the carrying of guns in that state's churches. The bill failed in February.

Pagano, 50, said some members of his church were concerned that President Obama's administration could restrict gun ownership, and they supported the plan for the event when Pagano asked their opinion.

Marian McClure Taylor, executive director of the Kentucky Council of Churches, an umbrella organization for 11 Christian denominations in Kentucky, said Christian churches are promoters of peace, but "most allow for arms to be taken up under certain conditions."

Taylor said Pagano assured her the event would focus on promoting responsible gun ownership and any proceeds would go to charity.

"Those two commitments are consistent with the high value the Assemblies of God churches place on human life," she said in an e-mail message.

Pagano is encouraging church members to bring a canned good and a friend to the event. He said guns must be unloaded for insurance purposes and safety reasons.

He said the point was not to mix worship with guns, though he may reference some passages from the Bible.

"Firearms can be evil and they can be useful," he said. "We're just trying to promote responsible gun ownership and gun safety."

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Title it what you will

2009-05-31T14:04:00.007-06:00

I realised something as church ended this morning; I may be loved but I am not understood. I actually have no idea why I continue to attend a church service week after week; I never receive what I really need and frankly most of this church and righteousness stuff complicates my life as much as it simplifies it.

I am lonely and long for a woman I can romance but it is becoming increasingly clear that I will probably never find such a woman in any church anywhere. I can never hold someone's attention long enough to really get her attention and the last one I really made an attempt for rejected me with such force that, well I can not convey the level of forcefulness without being accused of slander.

I am wired in such a way that my response to preaching is often worship. I do not need the worship warm me up, in fact I find it annoying. However I can feel like I could sit in the sanctuary and worship for days after a good message. The problem is that everyone else just wants to leave; I find the endless chatter in sanctuary after a message as rude as a worship leader would find endless chatter during the worship time.

I long to be understood and frankly have to be very gracious towards others with regards to love. It is hard to feel loved when you do not feel understood. Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying I am unloved, but what I am saying is that I am not understood and therefore can have a hard time feeling loved.

I seem to attract emotional people and that may be because I have been so severely punished for demonstrating emotion, positive or negative, that I can not. But they sense I would like like to.

I do not shy away from hard topics and thoughts. Read this blog and that becomes abundantly clear but I also know that that alienates me from others. People like the life of the party and not the heavy, but I am the heavy. I made a commitment to be an inch wide and a mile deep many years ago but I have found few can appreciate someone like that because people do not like having to face the deeper and darker realities, but that may also be what God has called me to - after all I was debating theologians and writing essays on euthanasia when I was 13.

I guess the point of all this is that, for better or worse, this blog is the closest thing I have to understanding. I post my thoughts and the deafening silence reminds me that people do not understand me, but at least I have expressed myself and no longer feel like I might explode.

I would also like to add that for some funny reason the last two paragraphs, in draft mode only, are inexplicibly in the largest size Blogger offers. I mention this because maybe there is some cosmic purpose to it.

I have a Confession to make

2009-05-24T19:22:00.002-06:00

I do not value the Gospel enough to...

SHARE THE FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SUFFERINGS

There is a price to be paid for the privilege of serving the persecuted Church.
As soon as my friend Colin walked into the meeting at Release International, I could see his exhaustion in the weary way he slumped into the chair.

Colin had been visiting Eritrean refugees. He had just returned from a tough trip, travelling for days in a worn-out van with rock-hard suspension.

With an overflowing heart Colin began to describe what he had seen and heard from those driven from Eritrea, a land described recently by the Guardian as a ‘giant prison’.

As the words began to flow I pecked out some notes:

Most of the key pastors and church leaders have been rounded up, Colin said.

200+ held in shipping containers… Christians singled out, tortured systematically.

Believers in the containers pass round scriptures copied onto scraps of tissue paper… Those caught sharing their faith or worshipping are savagely beaten.

We saw the scars on their legs and feet. As they relived their experiences you could feel their pain…

One man was imprisoned five times… thrown into a tiny cell. After three months the general asked him if he wanted to be released. All he had to do was sign to show he’d given up his Christian his faith. He refused.

He was beaten unconscious then thrown back into the cell with his wounds untreated.

Another punishment was to tie a prisoner’s hands then looping them round a tank barrel, which was raised, suspending the prisoner by the wrists.

One Christian was hospitalised for his injuries in the same ward as the officer who beat him. He went over to the soldier and told him: 'I do not hate you - because Jesus loves you.'

We saw some who were broken emotionally and spiritually. But most were neither beaten nor depressed, but humble, courageous believers who see their suffering as part of following in Christ’s footsteps.

Upwards of 2000 Christians are in prison in Eritrea for their faith. Where prison is an underground hell-hole or stinking, searing, shipping container in the desert. To go free, all they have to do is surrender their stubborn, unreasonable faith that so enrages this military junta.

But these Christians choose instead to share the fellowship of Christ's sufferings.

It is their great privilege. It is Colin's privilege to carry their pain in his heart. And it could be yours, too.

I think I would recant and sign that paper in a heartbeat. As I study this stuff I am repeatedly confronted with the fact that I can think of no advantage that my life of faith has brought me that is worth enduring persecution for. After over 30 years of supposedly being a Christian it has brought me nothing that is worth suffering or being tortured for.

I am not attacking God, Jesus, or Christianity even; I am simply stating that what Christianity has brought me is not worth being tortured for. Hell is too nebulous a concept to be really real to me and I can not think of one thing that years of Christian service, Bible study and faith has brought me in the here and now that is worth being tied to and suspended in the air from a barrel or having toothpicks stuck in my genitals (a Chinese torture) for.

Muslim Demographics

2009-05-19T20:40:00.000-06:00

Please watch this video.

2009-05-08T06:58:00.004-06:00

I heard this man speak, actually I was present when some of the footage used to make this video was taken.

and then there is this story:

North Korean Bride Trafficking: When Escape Becomes Bondage

Kristin Butler

Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

May 7, 2009

The translator could never capture the experience behind Young-Ae Kim’s emotional words, but he tried.

“She was raised with the idea that you have one lasting marriage – never did she imagine that she would be married three times by the age of 30, and treated like an animal.”

North Korean defector Young-Ae Kim told her story publically on April 29, along with Mi-Sun Bang, another woman whose account bears tragic resemblance to hers. Both women told reporters at the National Press Club a story that is becoming all too common among North Korean women. Both women were victims of “Bride Trafficking” – being bought and sold as wives for single Chinese men along the border between North Korea and China.

Mark Lagon, former U.S. Ambassador at Large for Combating Trafficking and now executive director of the Polaris Project on Human Trafficking, says that these women are “thrice victimized” – starved in North Korea, sexually exploited once they escape to China and tortured if they are repatriated to their home country.

Brides for Sale

Human trafficking “the fastest growing criminal industry in the world,” according to the Polaris Project. In China, years of the one child policy combined with centuries of disregard for girl-children has led to a literal market for refugee women.

Back in the mid-nineties, Tom Hilditch’s article, “A Holocaust of Little Girls,” captured the essence of a country where girls don’t matter.

“The birth of a girl has never been a cause for celebration in China,” he wrote, “and stories of peasant farmers drowning new born girls in buckets of water have been commonplace for centuries. Now, however, as a direct result of the one-child policy, the number of baby girls being abandoned, aborted, or dumped on orphanage steps is unprecedented.”

It’s not hard to connect the dots to where all of this has ended. The shortage of women in China is nothing less than a national disaster – in some rural areas Chinese men outnumber women by a 14 to 1 ratio, according to the U.S. Committee on Human Rights in North Korea. It is into these rural border areas that North Korean women, desperate to escape the starvation in their homeland, are arriving. For human traffickers, the situation could not be more ideal.

Translating Tears

Mi-Sun Bang cries as she tells of the day that she and her son and daughter attempted an escape from North Korea. The Tumen River ends the lives of many refugees – numerous bodies have been found along the shore. But for Mi-Sun Bang, there was no choice. Her husband had starved to death in 2002, and making the river escape to China was her only hope for survival. “We entered holding hands,” she recalls, “but we were all separated.” Miraculously, they survived the crossing.

But her troubles were far from over. Upon entry into China, Mi-Sun Bang fell prey to human traffickers operating on the border. She was sold for $585 to an older, disabled Chinese man, the first of several “husbands” that she would be sold to. The string of abuses and heartache that followed would be enough to crush anyone’s spirit. Her final husband, fourteen years her junior, demanded that she bear him a son. Soon afterwards, Mi-Sun Bang was turned into the authorities and arrested. She was sent back to North Korea, to the horrors of a labor camp.

Mi-Sun pauses at this point in her story, reflecting, trying to restrain her emotions. “There, people gave up on being human,” she says finally. She was beaten severely. She asks through her translator, “Would anyone like to see my wounds?” Small person that she is, Mi-Sun stands on a chair in the front of the room. She pulls up her skirt, revealing where literal chunks of flesh have been ripped from her leg. She walks with a limp today.

Driven by Desperation

A new report released by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea captures the firsthand accounts of over 70 trafficking victims. “The women who cross the border, more often than male refugees, tend to do so in the company of others,” the Lives for Sale report states, “Eighteen percent of those interviewed crossed the border with people whom they later came to realize were traffickers.”

But what about the women who made their escape without the “aid” of a trafficker? The Committee’s report emphasizes the likelihood that these women will be solicited immediately. “Almost from the moment they cross the border – and sometimes beginning in North Korea – refugee women are targeted by marriage brokers and pimps.”

The report concludes with a host of recommendations for China, North Korea, the United States and the international community. While calling on China to cease the repatriation of North Korean refugees, and North Korea to “undertake economic and agricultural reforms” and “decriminalize movement across the border,” the report urges the United States to “launch new initiatives to provide protection and assistance to North Korean women” along the border.

The plight of North Korean women sheds light on the larger issue of trafficking around the world. According to the U.S. Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, over 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders every year. Trafficking occurs in 170 countries, all of which are profiled and ranked in the Office’s annual report. And in many cases, the victims themselves have recommendations. Mi-Sun Bang pleads for President Obama to ensure that no more North Korean women are sold like she was, “sold like livestock in China.”

With trafficking – modern day slavery – claiming nearly a million victims a year, each woman, man, and child has a story to tell. And the plight of North Korean brides-for-sale is no different. Each one has a unique and tragic tale of enslavement.

“They would not allow me to leave the house,” recounts one North Korean woman, “then someone from Yanji came to take me to Heilongjiange Province by train. Only when we arrived in a village in Heilongjiang did I hear I was going to be married.”

Kristin Butler has visited with Christian communities throughout South Asia and the Middle East. She is a contributing writer at Crosswalk.com and covers religious freedom and human rights issues at BreakPoint.org. For further articles, visit her blog at kristinbutler.wordpress.com, or email kristin.wright.butler@gmail.com.

The Biblical Purpose for Polygyny??

2009-05-06T18:51:00.005-06:00

First, Polygyny is not a mistake, poly=many, gyny=female, many females. Traditionally the term used for this subject is polygamy, but gamy simply means marriage and when scripture speaks of polygamy it is always in terms of polygyny.

Second this post was spurred strictly by scripture and it has nothing to do with Bountiful B.C., FLDS, or Islam. I was was reading the account of Abraham's death and the fact that he had children by wives other than Hagar and Sarah.

The best definition I could find for a concubine is "a non-resident wife". So technically any woman a man is having sex with but is not living with is a concubine and since it is the act of consummation and not the public ceremony that God seems to recognise as the actual wedding a couple who have consummated are married. Therefore as far as God is concerned either Wilt Chamberlain or Gene Simmons are the worlds biggest polygynist in the last 50 years.

However I do think I may have pieced together a Biblical basis for polygyny, as it is traditionally practiced and not as Gene or Wilt practiced it, and it has nothing to do the the sexual needs of anyone. In fact it may better fit in the pro-life - abortion debate; polygyny is about being fruitful and multiplying, one man can realistically impregnate an average of 2 women a day (he can have sex and ejaculate more often but the quality of the ejaculate falls off markedly by the third and he is essentially shooting blanks from number four on). But a woman can only realistically have 1.0114 babies every year, allowing for naturally occurring multiple births (twins and triplets) .

Polygyny makes sense when the natural male to female bias is upset (105:100 at birth and 1:1 at 20 years of age - more boys than girls die during childhood). This is especially true in case of war or certain archaic practices where the male mortality was quite high. What caused me to realise this is an article I read that indicated that the Chinese are not near the military or economic threat that many think they are, the male to female ratio is so skewed in favor of boys that it can be argued that between parent's preference for a boy and the one child policy China has committed suicide. Now if it was the other way around, one man could impregnate over 700 women a year; but there is no way that one woman can be impregnated, let alone give birth, over 700 times in one year.

Polygyny allows a population to be quickly re-established after a tragedy and from this perspective it has nothing to do with sexual conquests, only obeying the first command of scripture, be fruitful and multiply. Polygyny is not the ideal any more than death is the ideal. People are no more created to be polygamous than they are to die, but sin has consequences, the wages of sin is death, and a response to death in certain circumstances is polygymy, neither is what God intended.

2009-04-27T05:45:00.001-06:00

Do we really pray for our leaders

2009-04-18T18:37:00.004-06:00

As I was reading the linked article I was struck by the thought, do I really pray for my leaders and not just my pastor, elders, and political leaders, but those who publicly represent my faith to the pagan world.

I am not saying that I necessarily consider Rick Warren as a major influence or leader in my life but he is, regardless of my relationship to him, an influential Christian leader. If some one cares to dig back in my archives they will find the necessary quotes to indicate that the United Church of Canada took upon them the Levities mantle for Canada, making them the spiritual gatekeepers of Canada regardless of what other's opinions of them may be. The Catholic Church is the only religious institution that has a seat in the General Assembly of the United Nations, this is a fact regardless of what any stanch reformer feels or believes - the Papal Nuncio is the defender of Christian interests at the United Nations. If a person sincerely believes that they ought to be praying for their leaders I am thinking that they should also consider praying for the leaders the they do not want to recognise as such; the Rick Warrens and the Joel Osteens that so many who consider themselves the defenders of orthodoxy cry foul about. Such men are the very public face of Evangelical Christianity regardless of the opinions of the self proclaimed defenders of orthodoxy, just like the Papal Nuncio is the voice of Christianity in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

My point is that it is easy to criticise the flaws of those who are out front, on the battlefront as it were, but they are also the ones who are faced with the unenviable task of publicly convincing the pagans to change sides and join the army of God. Unlike any other soldier their goal is not to slay their enemy, their goal is to convince their enemy to become a traitor, change sides and join God's army. Therefore they frequently choose to use honey rather than vinegar and are therefore at risk of laying the honey on a little thick; they need our prayers and solidarity rather than our criticism from deep behind the front.

Harvard Research Proves the Pope (and God) Right

2009-04-03T07:32:00.003-06:00

I honestly do not want this blog to turn into a serious of reposted articles I find in cyberspace, but I keep finding stuff that I think people need to read, or I hope they find interesting.

Harvard Research Proves the Pope (and God) Right
Frank Pastore
“The Frank Pastore Show,” KKLA, Los Angeles

March 26, 2009
When the pope visited Africa back in mid-March, a firestorm erupted when the media reported he had said “condoms spread AIDS.” Although the pope didn’t use those exact words, it was an accurate summary. Here’s what the pope did say:
I would say that this problem of AIDS cannot be overcome with advertising slogans. If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem. The solution can only come through a twofold commitment: firstly, the humanization of sexuality, in other words a spiritual and human renewal bringing a new way of behaving towards one another; and secondly, true friendship, above all with those who are suffering, a readiness—even through personal sacrifice—to be present with those who suffer. And these are the factors that help and bring visible progress.
According to the pope, “the scourge [of AIDS] cannot be resolved by distributing condoms”—in fact, doing so “risk[s] worsening the problem.” Predictably, there was a cacophony of condemnation directed at the pope. And to give just one example, ACT UP, the gay activist group, labeled him “assassin,” and threw condemns at worshippers leaving service at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.
I guess activists can’t help throwing condoms—either at those who oppose their policy, or at populations dying of AIDS in Africa and around the world.
Soon after the story broke, Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, released an interview with Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Here’s what Green had to say:
We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.
The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that condoms have been proven to not be effective at the level of population. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded Demographic Health Surveys, between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction technology such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by compensating or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.
I also noticed that the pope said monogamy was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than abstinence. The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).
So Harvard agrees with the pope: condoms spread AIDS!
Have you ever heard this before?—anywhere?
It’s hard to believe that there’s a classroom or newsroom in America where this has ever been discussed or broadcast.
Who knew that distributing condoms doesn’t lower the HIV-infection rate, it raises it?
I didn’t.
We were talking about this on my radio show the day the story broke, when I went to the next caller, “Rick in Santa Margarita”—who ended up being pastor Rick Warren from Saddleback, listening in on his way to a hospital visitation.
Rick shared that he’s friends with Ed Green, familiar with his research, and stays up to speed on the whole AIDS pandemic in Africa. No pastor in America has done more to fight AIDS in Africa than Rick Warren—and he went on to affirm everything Ed Green and the Pope said about condoms: passing out condoms promotes promiscuity, promiscuity increases risky behavior (i.e., “non-safe sex”), and non-safe sex spreads AIDS. Thus, “condoms spread AIDS.”
As Rick pointed out, the real question policy-makers must answer is whether they want to stop AIDS or merely slow it down. If they want to slow AIDS, then they’ll keep passing out condoms and teaching “safe sex.” But the problem is, we now know this isn’t true. Condom distribution doesn’t even slow the spread of AIDS, it actually speeds it up.
If they want to stop AIDS, then they’ll have to stop encouraging promiscuity and adultery and teach abstinence and monogamy.
This is why in Africa, where AIDS has already killed tens of millions, more and more countries are abandoning our Western strategy of condom distribution and replacing it with the strategy that actually does save lives.
Since it began teaching abstinence, Uganda has dropped its HIV infection rate from 30 percent down to 6 percent. Other countries have gotten the message.
The bottom line? God was right—again.
When He gave us the Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” it wasn’t for His benefit, but ours.
If the world won’t hear His message, maybe they’ll hear the message coming out of Africa.

Frank Pastore is host of “The Frank Pastore Show,” recognized by the National Religious Broadcasters as Talk Show Host of the Year in 2006. His program is heard on KKLA in Los Angeles 4-7 p.m. Monday through Friday. Contact Frank at Frank@kkla.com.

Does Your Pastor Believe in God?

2009-04-02T08:20:00.001-06:00

Does Your Pastor Believe in God?

Albert Mohler

Author, Speaker, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

A news report from the Netherlands points to a form of theological insanity that is spreading far beyond the Dutch. Ecumenical News International reports that church authorities in the Netherlands have decided not to take action against a Dutch pastor who openly declares himself to be an atheist.

The pastor, Klaas Hendrikse, serves a congregation of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands. In 2007 he published a book described as a "manifesto of an atheist pastor." In the book Hendrikse argues for the non-existence of God, but he insists that does believe in God as a concept.

As Ecumenical News International reports:

In his book, Hendrikse recounts how his conviction that God does not exist has become stronger over the years.

"The non-existence of God is for me not an obstacle but a precondition to believing in God. I am an atheist believer," Hendrikse writes in the book. "God is for me not a being but a word for what can happen between people. Someone says to you, for example, 'I will not abandon you', and then makes those words come true. It would be perfectly alright to call that [relationship] God."

While this kind of theological language may be shocking, it is not all that uncommon. For years, many theologians have been moving away from realist conceptions of theology to various forms of non-realism. In classical terms, anti-realist theologians can actually be atheists, for they do not believe that God actually or necessarily exists. They do, however, find "God" to be a useful concept.

Janet Martin Soskice defines theological realists as "those who, while aware of the inability of any theological formulation to catch the divine realities, none the less accept that there are divine realities that theologians, however ham-fistedly, are trying to catch."

That definition is incredible helpful, for it serves to remind us that there are, on the other hand, some theologians who believe that there is no divine reality at all. Evidently, there are some pastors who also believe that there is no God, but there is a concept of God that we can use.

Most Christians would be shocked and scandalized to know that a pastor would be an atheist -- and intend to remain as pastor. But in the doctrinally disarmed world of many denominations, the service of an atheist as pastor is not only conceivable but actual. In one sense, Klass Hendrikse is merely more open about his atheism than many others. Indeed, many liberal Protestants believe that God is, in the end, an intellectual concept that may add meaning to life -- not a living self-existent deity who rules over all.

In Klass Hendrikse's case, his congregation belongs to two denominational groups. Neither denominational body was willing to bring Pastor Hendrikse to a church trial or disciplinary process.

In announcing the decision not to discipline Hendrikse, the church told the congregation by letter that a disciplinary process would amount to "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity."

Such is the world of liberal Protestantism. The service of a preacher who does not even believe in God is preferable to "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity." Of course, the lack of clarity is the church's own fault. It is not as if the issues are not sufficiently clear. A denomination that will not require its pastors to believe that God exists is a denomination that has reached the very bottom of the well in terms of theological insanity. According to the news report, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands claims that its own laws prevent the denomination from taking any action against a serving pastor.

The theological self-destruction of the church never starts with a pastor who doesn't even believe in the existence of God. It begins with denials of one doctrine here, another there. Before long, the unwillingness of the church to call its churches and ministers to account leads to further theological concessions. The cowardice of church bureaucrats opens the door to any and all theological aberrations. The next thing you know, there is an atheist in the pulpit.

A church afraid of "a protracted discussion about the meanings of words that in the end will produce little clarity" is itself the guilty party in that lack of clarity. The church bears the responsibility to make the issues clear and to defend the faith -- otherwise it isn't a church at all.

The Dutch have become famous worldwide for their liberal approach to assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this case we see something new -- the suicide of a church.

Is Your Church Safe?

2009-03-23T10:45:00.003-06:00

A few weeks ago it was mentioned in passing to me by our youth pastor that as a church we need forum to openly discuss certain weighty extra-scriptural matters, to which I replied, "in many ways my blog is already that forum it is just that no one comments on it".

So in an effort to introduce a new element to our church life I am posting the following article and encouraging all comments, in fact I may not comment at all, all I may do is moderate the comments of others.

Is Your Church a Safe Church?
Ginny McCabe
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

March 23, 2009

With proper security measures in place, a church or religious organization can deter or prevent a potential incident from happening, said security experts.

Earlier public occurrences, such as Paducah, Kentucky’s Heath High School shooting in 1997, or the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 forced security precautions to be instituted in places like schools, malls, theaters and other public arenas.

Now, incidents such as the First Baptist Church of Maryville, Ill., and Colorado Springs New Life Church shooting in 2008 and similar tragedies have caused officials to step up security measures in churches and other religious institutions.

In today’s culture, church leaders need to be armed against the potential dangers of a stranger or intruder. They also need be aware and protect themselves against possible threats and accusations, as well as insure the church is a safe place for everyone, according to Rick Anderson, co-founder/owner, Church Security Solutions, LLC.

Anderson said there are several things churches can do to lessen the likelihood of an attack. He suggests following several steps, including assessing your church’s areas of security vulnerability, developing a volunteer safety and security team, and providing your key staff and volunteers of the knowledge of what to look for in a threat.

Anderson, a former mega-church pastor of administration of 18 years and his partner, Raul Ramirez founded the Salem, Oregon-based Church Security Solutions, LLC. in 2007. The company helps churches across the country become proactive with their security by offering services through their private consulting firm that is dedicated to protecting the church. One of their clients is Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Ga., whose media arm has produced the Christian blockbusters "Facing the Giants" and "Fireproof."

"As a pastor, and as someone who has been through seminary, I know you don’t get classes on 'Security 101,'" Anderson said. "We felt a burden to come alongside of pastors and to assist them, unfortunately, against what we think is probably going to increase as time goes on, and that is these acts of violence against the church. As society becomes more secular, and moves away from a Christian worldview, it is going to increasingly become uncomfortable with this icon of righteousness, and that would be the church. And, it will lash out at this benchmark of morality and strike at it."

He said churches need to take a proactive approach, and that they have a responsibility to insure congregants are safe.

As a result of his own experiences, Ron Aguiar, mega-church director of security at the 18,000-member Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Ky., has recently released a book on church safety called "Keeping Your Church Safe." The book serves as a blueprint for implementing security protocols and processes in churches of all sizes across the nation.

"In a world when a gunman can enter a church and go on a shooting rampage or a person can walk in and steal a child from the church nursery without any obstacles, we need to be sure that protecting our houses of worship is one of our top priorities," said Ron Aguiar. "Keeping Your Church Safe" suggests ways to protect every corner of a church building, its members, its employees and its volunteers. Topics covered in the book include risk management, how to implement a medical program, how to protect the children of the church, protecting the church’s money, and dealing with protests and terrorism.

Aguiar has over 20 years of experience with a combined background in personal security, public law enforcement and church security. He offers readers advice as well as real-life experiences and lessons learned throughout the course of his career.

"During the last ten years, I’ve had many requests from churches that call and ask for help in specific areas related to safety and security, or risk management in general," Aguiar said. "I finally said, 'I need to put this into a book, it would be easier, and if someone requests information, I can tell them to pick it up and it covers A to Z.'"

Dennis Richards, lead director of connections; Joe Mauldin, director of facilities; and Robyn Holmes, director of operations for kid’s kinistry, of Bent Tree Bible Fellowship in Carrollton, TX, agreed that safety in the church is vital. They work together on a regular basis to make sure their 5,000 member church is safe, and said safety is an issue that all churches, large or small, need to consider.

"Church safety is very important. Our goal is to have our people trained and have a set of guidelines in place that we can go into action mode if anything happened," they said. "Churches need guidelines which keeps the environment as safe as possible."

In regard to that security, Bent Tree Bible Fellowship has a team in place that spans the Operations and Facilities team, Connections Team (guest services and communications) and Missions, with an alliance from their Public Relations Agency.

One of the particular security measures taken at Bent Tree Bible Fellowship is the presence of police officers.

"We have eight police on site every Sunday. Their main role is traffic control as we are flanked by two other large churches, so Sunday morning traffic is an issue. When those officers are not directing traffic they are posted around our campus. We keep them low profile, but their presence is definitely there," the staff said. "Two years ago we did a topical series on issues that had political ties. We brought in for the first time a plain-clothes officer into our services. From that learning we decided to continue that practice. One of the awesome results of that is after a recent service the officer approached our Senior Pastor and said ‘I need to get right with Jesus right now.’ He prayed and now is a brother is Christ. No amount of planning or guidelines can account for that fruit."

Security experts offer many tips to keep your church safe. Here are just a few:
Take a pro-active approach to safety and security. Refrain from the notion "This will not happen to us."
Work with local authorities—Police/law enforcement and fire departments, insurance companies, FBI etc. on safety and security assessment and training.
Have a third party evaluation/security audit done of your building/facilities—Either from police, fire department or a consultant.
Run criminal/background checks on all volunteers. (It’s also best if they are church members for at least six months.)
Identify church members or leaders who are doctors, nurses, EMT’s, and those who know CPR in case of medical emergencies. Have first aid supplies on hand, and know when to call 911.

"Pastors need to take this seriously," Anderson said. "They are going to be identified as a target, because they are that personification of this gold standard of morality."

Ginny McCabe is an author, feature and entertainment writer from Cincinnati, OH. You may email her at gmwriteon@aol.com, or visit http://www.gmwriteon.com/.

There you go people, have at it. This is should be something that everyone has thoughts or an opinion on.

Why Winston Blackmore and James Oler must win their case and therefore Canada's polygamy law struck down.

2009-03-17T21:24:00.004-06:00

I am suprised I appear to be the only person who understands the grave consequences of the decision of Dr. Charles McVety and the Institute for Family Values to support the crown in it's prosecution of Misters Winston Blackmore and James Oler for polygamy. The crown is arguing that human rights should always trump religious rights; essentially what they are saying is that Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should take precedence over religious convictions. What this means in English is that when religious practice and human rights clash religious freedom must bow to human rights. The Institute for Family Values, an Evangelical Christian organisation, is agreeing that human rights should be valued above religious conviction and therefore scripture.

This decision by The Institute for Family Values and Dr. Charles McVety is devastating because it is opening the door to and inviting persecution inside the Church in Canada. I have little problem with persecution on a philosphical level, it is probably the healthiest thing that can happen to any church and is what causes the church universal to grow exponentially, but it is also devastatingly painful and indicative of a repressive civil regime - lack of religious freedom indicates a dictatorship of some description is taking hold of the governing authorities.

Do not misunderstanding what is being said. Polygamy is bad, but lack of religious freedom is worse. One of the cornerstones of capitialist ideology is the idea of free, fair and open competition. Religions and their various sects are philosphical systems and they need to be able to compete for the hearts and minds of people, just like manufacturers need to be able to compete for the consumer's dollar and like the goods the manufacturers produce religions must be able to openly compete for the hearts and minds of people.

Placing human rights on a higher plane than religious rights undermines this competition. If anything, what is needed is more de-regulation of human and religious rights, not more regulation. Many people believe that polygamy is destructive, but because it is not legal and therefore is banned from the market place of ideas it's evil can not be clearly seen, if in fact it is evil (non-prejudicial evaluation is a critieria for competition in the marketplace - every idea or product is expected to fail or succeed on it own merits) . Freedom of religion and freedom of conscience demands that religious rights not be submitted to the ideology of human rights, which are a by-product of the various ideologies that compete for people's religious adherance.

By allowing the fuzzy idea of human rights to trump religious rights, Christians parents can be prosecuted for indoctrinating their children against homosexuality and promiscuity, Muslims parents can be prosecuted for making their girls wearing a hajab and Jehovah's Witness parents can be prosecuted for forcing their children to withdraw from civil activities and not giving them presents at Christmas. This does not even begin to address certain other religions such as voodoo where animal sacrifices may be involved. In the end people must be allowed to make informed decisions about their religious choices and practices and they can not make those choices if they are not allowed to observe how the various religions, and their practices, effect the lives of their adherents. Competition is necessary and healthy, it allows for informed decisions and it is the ability to make informed decision that ought to be the basis of the lawsuit.

How many of the women entered into the plural marriages voluntarily as a result of an informed decision making process and what can we do as a society to ensure that those raised in a polygamous, or even a Hutterite, environment are able to make informed choices about the ideology they will choose to guide their lives? That is the question that needs to be asked, not whether polygamy should be legal.

Another trick question

2009-02-17T21:06:00.004-06:00

What is more important orthodoxy or sincere faith?

Okay I have one response, so now I will show my hand.

I take on myself scourgings, imprisonment, tortures, reproaches, crossses, blows, tribulations and all temptations of the world, which our Lord and Intercessor and the Universal and Apostolic holy Church took upon themselves and lovingly accepted. So even do I, an unworthy servant of Jesus Christ, with great love and ready will, take upon myself all these until the hour of my death.

If you have been raised in an evangelical tradition you have most certainly been taught that the man that uttered those words is a heretic. What that is is the ordination oath of one Russian Orthodox priest during the Cold War.

I, for one, can not in good conscience call another man a heretic when he is being persecuted and tortured for worshiping the same God I do even if I thoroughly disagree with his doctrine - in fact I can not even comment on his doctrine in good conscience.

What is My Problem?

2009-02-15T17:55:00.001-06:00

People do not follow me. I could live with that, I had accepted that, but my pastor spoke against it and encouraged me to try again. So I did.

We had over 20 people at the the first meeting, 7 at the next and at this last one we had 4, one of which isn't even really a part of our congregation.

I am really wondering if anyone was actually following me at the first meeting, or did they just follow my pastor who was following me.

Some of you might point out that my scheduling for this last meeting was bad, but that was to accommodate someone who in the end chose not to come.

What is my problem?

How Do You Stop Someone From Making The Single Largest Mistake of Their Life?

2009-02-10T20:43:00.003-06:00

Any wisdom out there from either those who have some idea what I am talking about or even those who have stumbled upon this blog and are completely clueless about the situation. I might even consider advice from people I am not even supposed to be talking to.

Tozer

2009-01-31T08:33:00.001-06:00

Reflecting on the Memoirs of Those Who Walked with God

. . . Why do the majority of present day Christians prefer shallow religious fiction? Or uninspired Bible talks that never get beyond the "first principles"? Or one-page daily devotions? Or watered-down Christian biography? . . .

. . . present day evangelical Christianity is not producing saints. The whole concept of religious experience has shifted from the transcendental to the utilitarian. God is valued as being useful and Christ appreciated because of the predicaments He gets us out of. He can deliver us from the consequences of our past, relax our nerves, give us peace of mind and make our business a success. The all-consuming love that burns in the writings of an Augustine, a Bernard or a Rolle is foreign to the modern religious spirit. Like understands like and fails to comprehend what is unlike itself. The tortoise finds the mockingbird dull. Esau has no fellowship with Jacob. "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14).

To come to our devotions straight from carnal or worldly interests is to make it impossible to relish the deep, sweet thoughts found in the great books we are discussing here. We must know their heart-language, must vibrate in harmony with them, must share their inward experiences or they will mean nothing to us. Because we are too often strangers to their spiritual mood, we are unable to profit by them and are forced to turn to one or another form of religious entertainment to make our Christianity palatable enough to endure.

What kind of people are these?

2009-01-18T17:12:00.004-06:00

From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, October 9, 2006

Have you considered donating to NCR?

October 9, 2006

Joan Chittister: From Where I Stand

Vol. 4, No. 23

What kind of people are these?

"The spirit we have, not the work we do, is what makes us important to the people around us."

Archive of
past columns

A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Joan Chittister is a best-selling author and well-known international lecturer on topics of justice, peace, human rights, women's issues, and contemporary spirituality in the Church and in society. She presently serves as the co-chair of the Global Peace Initiative of Women, a partner organization of the United Nations, facilitating a worldwide network of women peace builders, especially in the Middle East. A speech communications theorist, Sister Joan's most recent books include The Way We Were (Orbis) and Called to Question (Sheed & Ward), a First Place CPA 2005 award winner. She is founder and executive director of Benetvision, a resource and research center for contemporary spirituality in Erie.

By Joan Chittister, OSB

This is your last notice: NCR is moving its e-mail lists to a new user-authenticated-user system. To continue to receive e-mail alerts for this column, you must re-subscribe before Oct. 12. Follow this link: Sign-up Page. The new system will help you and us control spam.

The country that went through the rabid slaughter of children at Columbine high school several years ago once again stood stunned at the rampage in a tiny Amish school this month.

We were, in fact, more than unusually saddened by this particular display of viciousness. It was, of course, an attack on 10 little girls. Amish. Five dead. Five wounded. Most people called it "tragic." After all, the Amish represent no threat to society, provide no excuse for the rationalization of the violence so easily practiced by the world around them.

Nevertheless, in a nation steeped in violence -- from its video games to its military history, in foreign policy and on its streets -- the question remains: Why did this particular disaster affect us like it did? You'd think we'd be accustomed to mayhem by now.

But there was something different about this one. What was it?

Make no mistake about it: the Amish are not strangers to violence.

The kind of ferocity experienced by the Amish as they buried the five girl-children murdered by a crazed gunmen two weeks ago has not really been foreign to Amish life and the history of this peaceful people.

This is a people born out of opposition to violence -- and, at the same time, persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants in the era before religious tolerance. Having failed to adhere to the orthodoxy of one or the other of the controlling theocracies of their home territories, they were banished, executed, imprisoned, drowned or burned at the stake by both groups.

But for over 300 years, they have persisted in their intention to be who and what they said they were.

Founded by a once-Catholic priest in the late 17century, as part of the reformist movements of the time, the Mennonites -- from which the Amish later sprung -- were, from the beginning, a simple movement. They believe in adult baptism, pacifism, religious tolerance, separation of church and state, opposition to capital punishment, and opposition to oaths and civil office.

They organize themselves into local house churches. They separate from the "evil" of the world around them. They live simple lives opposed to the technological devices -- and even the changing clothing styles -- which, in their view, encourage the individualism, the pride, that erodes community, family, a righteous society. They work hard. They're self-sufficient; they refuse both Medicare and Social Security monies from the state. And though the community has suffered its own internal violence from time to time, they have inflicted none on anyone around them.

Without doubt, to see such a peaceful people brutally attacked would surely leave any decent human being appalled.

But it was not the violence suffered by the Amish community last week that surprised people. Our newspapers are full of brutal and barbarian violence day after day after day -- both national and personal.

No, what really stunned the country about the attack on the small Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania was that the Amish community itself simply refused to hate what had hurt them.

"Do not think evil of this man," the Amish grandfather told his children at the mouth of one little girl's grave.

"Do not leave this area. Stay in your home here." the Amish delegation told the family of the murderer. "We forgive this man."

No, it was not the murders, not the violence, that shocked us; it was the forgiveness that followed it for which we were not prepared. It was the lack of recrimination, the dearth of vindictiveness that left us amazed. Baffled. Confounded.

It was the Christianity we all profess but which they practiced that left us stunned. Never had we seen such a thing.

Here they were, those whom our Christian ancestors called "heretics," who were modeling Christianity for all the world to see. The whole lot of them. The entire community of them. Thousands of them at one time.

The real problem with the whole situation is that down deep we know that we had the chance to do the same. After the fall of the Twin Towers we had the sympathy, the concern, the support of the entire world.

You can't help but wonder, when you see something like this, what the world would be like today if, instead of using the fall of the Twin Towers as an excuse to invade a nation, we had simply gone to every Muslim country on earth and said, "Don't be afraid. We won't hurt you. We know that this is coming from only a fringe of society, and we ask your help in saving others from this same kind of violence."

"Too idealistic," you say. Maybe. But since we didn't try, we'll never know, will we?

Instead, we have sparked fear of violence in the rest of the world ourselves. So much so, that they are now making nuclear bombs to save themselves. From whom? From us, of course.

The record is clear. Instead of exercising more vigilance at our borders, listening to our allies and becoming more of what we say we are, we are becoming who they said we are.

For the 3,000 dead in the fall of the Twin Towers at the hands of 19 religious fanatics, we have more than 2,700 U.S. soldiers now killed in military action, more than 20,600 wounded, more than 10,000 permanently disabled. We have thousands of widows and orphans, a constitution at risk, a president that asked for and a Congress that just voted to allow torture, and a national infrastructure in jeopardy for want of future funding.

And nobody's even sure how many thousand innocent Iraqis are dead now, too.

Indeed, we have done exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do. We have proven that we are the oppressors, the exploiters, the demons they now fear we are. And -- read the international press -- few people are saying otherwise around the world.

From where I stand, it seems to me that we ourselves are no longer so sure just exactly what kind of people we have now apparently become.

Interestingly enough, we do know what kind of people the Amish are -- and, like the early Romans, we, too, are astounded at it. "Christian" they call it.

Time Is Running Out: NCR is moving its e-mail lists to a new user-authenticated-user system. To continue to receive e-mail alerts for this column, you must re-subscribe before Oct. 12. Follow this link: Sign-up Page. The new system will help you and us control spam.

Comments or questions about this column may be sent to: Sr. Joan Chittister, c/o NCR web coordinator at the address below.

Tozer Nails it Again

2008-12-23T11:00:00.002-06:00

It is vitally important that we make a sharp distinction between knowledge and truth--that is, between the knowledge that is but the sum of facts we possess and truth which is a moral and spiritual thing. It is possible to fill the mind with facts and be none the better for it, for facts have no moral or spiritual significance. Facts bear the same relation to truth that a corpse bears to a man. They serve as a medium whereby truth relates itself to outward life and circumstance but must depend for their significance upon the inner essence of truth.

This is even more relevant in our modern internet age where, just this morning, by stumbling around and following a few links I learned of a female impersonator whose fame was solidified the day he ate dog feces on camera - information I have no desire to possess but now do.

Now something positive but in the same vein as my last post

2008-12-09T06:34:00.003-06:00

Skim to the last paragraph, that is what is important.

Christie Hefner to step down as Playboy CEO

Tuesday, December 9 12:31 am

Playboy announced Monday that Christie Hefner is stepping down as chairman and chief executive of the adult magazine company founded by her father more than five decades ago.

"Last month marked my 20th anniversary as CEO," Hefner said in a statement. "Just as this country is embracing change in the form of new leadership, I have decided that now is the time to make changes in my own life as well."

Playboy said Hefner, 56, would remain as CEO of Playboy Enterprises Inc. until January 31, 2009, while the board of directors searches for a replacement.

It said media executive Jerome Kern would serve as interim non-executive chairman.

"I have had a remarkable career with Playboy. I never expected to go into the family business, much less to stay here this long, but I have enjoyed the challenges and opportunities the past decades have presented," Hefner said.

"I believe the company's businesses are well-positioned for future growth, and I can leave the company confident that the current management team will be able to capitalize on our achievements and the opportunities in development."

Hugh Hefner, 82, who founded Playboy in 1953, said his daughter had "worked tirelessly to expand the company's franchise, and, as a result of her efforts, the company today has more consumers and fans than at any time in our history.

"While I will miss her leadership here, I believe that she will go on to achieve even greater personal success," he said in a statement.

Besides its flagship magazine, the Chicago-based Playboy Enterprises Inc. also operates the Playboy and Spice television networks and the Playboy.com website.

The company last month reported a net loss of 5.2 million dollars in the third quarter on revenue of 70.4 million dollars, down from 82.8 million dollars in the same period last year. It also cut more than 100 jobs.

Some news I think everyone, regardless of gender, will have a hard time with

2008-12-03T20:52:00.003-06:00

Lapdancing 'not sexually stimulating', MPs hear

Parliamentary committee 'astonished' by industry claim

By Lester Haines

Posted in Law, 26th November 2008 12:02 GMT

The Commons culture committee yesterday heard claims that lapdancing is "not sexually stimulating" during a hearing into the Licensing Act which is pondering reclassifying lapdancing clubs as "sex encounter establishments" - something which would make it easier for local councils to refuse them licences.

According to the Guardian, the statement by chairman of the Lap Dancing Association, Simon Warr, was "greeted with scepticism" by MPs. Warr insisted the clubs were providing hospitality, rather than sex, and "astonished" the committee by explaining: "One of the biggest problems we face is that not enough people understand the business blueprint of our clubs. Actually, our premises are not sexually stimulating. It would be contrary to our business plan if they were."

A suitably astonished Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, interjected: "You are saying that the purpose of a lap dancing club is not to be sexually stimulating? Most people would find that a rather incredible claim."

Warr defended: "Then you need to go to a club, because the purpose of a club is to provide entertainment. It's to provide alcohol, it's a place of leisure. All right, the entertainment may be in the form of nude or semi-nude performers, but it's not sexually stimulating."

Davies, by now pretty well incredulous, the Guardian notes, persisted: "So if I did a straw poll of all the customers who came out a lap dancing club and said 'Did you find that in any way sexually stimulating?' I would find a big resounding fat zero? On that basis you would have a lot of dissatisfied customers."

Warr offered: "How do you measure sexual stimulation. What is the definition of sexual stimulation?"

Veteran club entrepreneur Peter Stringfellow then weighed into the fray, explaining, that: "Of course it's sexually stimulating. So is a disco. So is a young girl flashing away with her knickers showing. Of course it's sexually stimulating. So is David Beckham laid out in his Calvin Klein [underwear]. So are the Chippendales. Of course it does have some form of sex.

"But what my colleague was trying to explain was that it's not sex, 100 per cent. It's not 'I'm going to go and get divorced.' It does not go on like that. Our environment lasts three minutes. Their clothes are on and off before you can blink. It's a lot more to do with personality. It's a lot more to do with the ambience of the club."

Stringfellow further argued that a change of the law was not required because council could stipulate a "no nudity" requirement on licences and use this to close down "badly-run" establishments.

Kate Nicholls, the secretary of the Lap Dancing Association, agreed that councils "already had enough power to stop clubs opening under the existing legislation", which "allows them to consider issues such as public safety, public order, public nuisance and the protection of children".

Those of you who'd like to know who's to blame for this debate on a matter of national importance can finger backbench Labour MP Roberta Blackman-Woods, who apparently proposed the reclassification. Earlier this month, her action prompted Spearmint Rhino to dispatch (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/05/lapdancer_petition/) a couple of lapdancers to Downing Street to impress on the PM that the offending clubs were not dens of iniquity.

Spokeswoman Elaine Reed said: “The workers within our industry are absolutely horrified that the Government are trying to rebrand us as part of the sex industry. It’s quite clear we are not part of the sex industry, we never have been and we don’t intend to be. Our clubs are controlled, there’s no sexual activity going on.”

Davies, however, yesterday pressed the Lap Dancing Association to answer allegations "that at some clubs dancers do offer sexual services, contrary to the rules".

The association's vice chairman, Chris Knight, responded: "We are not saying there are not bad clubs. There are bad drivers. But you do not change the way that you licence drivers." ®

I know that this man is having a "hard" time believing this story.

Jew verses Gentile

2008-12-01T07:09:00.004-06:00

...when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased 1:16 to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being, 1:17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.

1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 1:20 I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you! 1:21 Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 1:22 But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. - Galatians 1:15-21

God chose Paul to preach the Gospel to the gentiles and not the Jews. Paul's anointing was to the gentiles, so much so that he was unknown to the Jewish believers.

This explains the gentile church's obsession with Paul's teaching, rather than that of other contemporary teachers of his time.

A messianic Jew should be markedly different and have a different understanding of the same gospel as a gentile. The gentile church's obsession with Paul's teaching is logical and rational he was the apostle sent to the gentiles. Peter, James, John and the others were the ones sent to the Jews, so therefore one might even expect a messianic congregation to even use a different 'Bible', despite believing and preaching the same gospel.

Time for a Laugh

2008-12-01T05:50:00.002-06:00

I do not believe in the Gospel

2008-11-19T22:21:00.002-06:00

Glad to have your attention.

By the way, I strongly doubt that you believe the gospel either.

I have come to the conclusion that for all practical purposes well over 90% of all professing Christians do not actually believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ has any real power to change a person's life.

Such a bold statement requires a bold explaination. I have seen the gospel transform a relatively good person into a better person and maybe even transform a good person into a great person, but I have never seen the gospel transform a reprobate into a righteous man. I have met men that claim that they once were reprobates who clearly are not reprobates but I have never seen the transformation myself.

I also do not believe that most other so called Christians have seen this transformation either and I have concluded that that is why they fear the things they do, vote the way they do and frankly live the way they do. At our collective core we do not believe that the murder, rapist or paedophile can ever change so therefore I have concluded that we must not believe that it is possible to be a new creation in Christ.

How different would our churches look if:

2008-11-11T16:39:00.003-06:00

How different would our churches look if "...the ministry [was] a calling for a holy man who has been made holy some other way than by the work he does"? (A.W. Tozer)

We have turned being a clergymen into a career choice rather than a calling. I will make a gross exaggeration regarding the freshman class of most ministerial training institutions, roughly one half of them want to be youth pastors. They do not feel a calling, they just want to keep being a child, gain adult recognition, a title and get paid for it.

How different would our churches and training institutes look if the first critera from the president of the school all the way down to the freshmen was a holy life? The only way in is by being recommended by one's congregation based on one's character, no applications, just being sent out by the congregation who are blessing and sponsoring the student to go and paying the student's way - the congregation is obligated to put it's money where it's blessing is.

I would like to think that it would result in far less contextual criticism and a far better practical understanding of the faith and scripture. I would like to think that it would cause a far higher quality of Christian character than what we currently see represented in our congregations and the marketplace.

Just a thought.

2008-11-03T07:09:00.002-06:00

Eighth-Grade Boy Sent Home From School for Jesus Christ Halloween Costume

2008-11-03T06:58:00.001-06:00

Saturday , November 01, 2008

PARAMUS, N.J. —

Dressing up as Jesus Christ for Halloween turned out to be a problem for a northern New Jersey boy.

Alex Woinski, an eighth-grader at West Brook Middle School in Paramus, was sent home from school on Friday because of his costume.

Alex, who has shoulder-length brown hair, wore a white robe, a red sash, sandals, a fake beard and a crown of thorns.

His mother says Alex was told he could keep the costume on if he removed the beard and crown of thorns, but he declined.

Superintendent James Montesano says the district doesn't want students wearing costumes that could be distracting.

Alex's mother is Catholic, and his father is Jewish.

He recently celebrated his Bar Mitzvah and is studying Bible scripture, according to his mom.

Where are the Labourers?

2008-10-28T21:16:00.002-06:00

No one wants to be a labourer anymore and I fear that attitude has crept into our churches too, recently my prisoner vistitation partner and I were asked to quadruple our load because the need is so great and the labourers are so few.

This evening I attended a talk on the need for churches and individuals to sponsor refugees to come to Canada.

When Jesus spoke of the harvest being great and the labourers being few he was referring to spreading of the gospel, which most evangelical churches have taken to mean preaching the word, but visiting the prisoners, sponsoring refugees, feeding the homeless and so much more are also works of righteousness. Works of righteousness that are being ignored at best and dismissed as secondary to preaching at worst - we need to show them Jesus cares before we can tell them he does.

Orissa

2008-10-25T23:10:00.028-06:00

2008-10-23T07:56:00.000-06:00

Just another thought

2008-10-12T15:18:00.003-06:00

Some years ago I discovered Psalm 11:5

The Lord approves of the godly, but he hates the wicked and those who love to do violence.

And drew certain conclusions from this passage. Conclusions that I feel I was forced to compromise on if I wanted to remain in fellowship with other believers. Many Christians love their violence and wear it as a badge of honour that they have seen Hollywood's latest gore and violencefest. Further to this it is also considered perfectly acceptable, in fact in many circles it is encouraged and glorified, for Christians to run around firing medium powered weapons at one another.

Violence has a purpose and it should never be divorced from that purpose. Violence is a direct result of the fall of man. There is no violence in heaven.

I used to be very good friends with an avid hunter who told me that he would be giving the then year old son in his lap a rifle for his twelfth birthday and the first time the child fired a gun the father would be at his side. In the mean time he intended to teach his son, as his own father did him, that:

you point
you shoot
you kill
you clean
you eat

and any behaviour short of this encourages "irresponsible use of a firearm". His view was guns are for killing and killing is a very serious thing so you should never even pretend to point a gun at something you do not intend to kill.

Then today in my devotions I came across Malachi 2:16,

“I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and the one who is guilty of violence,”

My point is I find it strange, and have for years, that it is totally and completely acceptable and implicitly, if not explicitly, encouraged in every church I have ever even been associated with to fill our minds with violent images but often sexual subjects (sometimes not even images)* are to be avoided at all costs.

Sex, which God created and man perverted, is evil but violence which is a direct consequence of sin and the fall of man is acceptable?

Where did we get these values from?

* many years ago I was at a friend's house and we where watching Parenthood and Die Hard (I think it was) and when it came to the scene where the subject of an adolesecnt boy having a wet dream was being dealt with the host fast forwarded through it but we watched Die Hard, or whatever it was, unedited.

Indian Christians Consider Self-Defense Against Violence

2008-10-10T10:23:00.002-06:00

click on the title to read the article

My Response:

(1.00) Act 16:38
The police officers reported these words to the magistrates. They were frightened when they heard Paul and Silas were Roman citizens

(0.80) Act 22:25
When they had stretched him out for the lash, Paul said to the centurion standing nearby, “Is it legal for you to lash a man who is a Roman citizen without a proper trial?”

(0.80) Act 22:26
When the centurion heard this, he went to the commanding officer and reported it, saying, “What are you about to do? For this man is a Roman citizen.”

(0.80) Act 22:27
So the commanding officer came and asked Paul, “Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?” He replied, “Yes.”

(0.80) Act 23:27
This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, when I came up with the detachment and rescued him, because I had learned that he was a Roman citizen.

(0.70) Act 22:29
Then those who were about to interrogate him stayed away from him, and the commanding officer was frightened when he realized that Paul was a Roman citizen and that he had had him tied up.

(0.60) Act 16:37
But Paul said to the police officers, “They had us beaten in public without a proper trial – even though we are Roman citizens – and they threw us in prison. And now they want to send us away secretly? Absolutely not! They themselves must come and escort us out!”

Simply put, how many of us affluent Western Christians are prepared to use our citizenship to help our brothers and sisters who are being persecuted.

The Indian government is refusing to act due to political reasons, but if British, American, Canadian and Western European Christians were willing to go and suffer along side the Indians this could quickly be escalated into an international incident forcing the Indian government to act.

Now in answer to the obvious question, I am willing, but I currently lack the means. In fact I am the perfect sort of person to go, I am healthy, able bodied and have no family. I can be killed, my death could have a meaning but in the long -term I would leave no one close to me behind to mourn and miss me.

Excerpts from my Journal

2008-10-08T12:17:00.004-06:00

October 7, 2008

There is something wrong when I expect less from the infinite creator of the entire universe than I do from another created being. You make promises, claim to be the only constant and reliable thing in the universe but let your faithful servants suffer persecution and humiliation after you promise blessing and prosperity if they will only be solely yours.
Explain this to me, please.

Some Context from my blog:

November 16, 2007

What I am wondering about is how can it be said that a Chinese Pastor, who has been assigned by the state, to work chest deep in a raw sewage with no personal protective equipment whatsoever is, 'blessed in the city and blessed in the field... blessed in the produce of his soil, the offspring of his livestock, the calves of his herds and the lambs of his flock, his basket and mixing bowl are blessed, he is blessed in his coming in and his going out'?

These are great and powerful blessings promised for being faithful to God. But how can a person reconcile, what is clearly referring to material blessings, against persecution and poverty for being faithful to God.

I am... asking "one of those questions you are not suppose to ask". ...[I]t strikes me [as] hypocritical that many Christians would feel hurt and betrayed if a person made the above promise to them only to have the promise giver let them shovel sewage[;] but because it is God all is good and God is faithful(???) There is a severe disconnect if a person will accept as good from God what they would considered cruelty and betrayal from another human being.

From my journal:

October 8, 2008

``What is the answer to my question regarding persecution, humiliation and your promises of blessing and prosperity''?

For Christianity to stand it must be intellectually cohesive. In other words, if we hold that God is a superior and omnipotent being to his created beings, at the very least we must hold God to the same, if not a higher standard, than that which we hold each other to.

Back to my blog:

I am... asking "one of those questions you are not suppose to ask".... [I]t strikes me [as] hypocritical that many Christians would feel hurt and betrayed if a person made the above promise to them only to have the promise giver let them shovel sewage but because it is God all is good and God is faithful(???) There is a severe disconnect if a person will accept as good from God what they would considered cruelty and betrayal from another human being.

Over breakfast I posed this question to the brain trust, or the three wise men if you prefer.

``What is the answer to my question regarding persecution, humiliation and [God's] promises of blessing and prosperity''?

Any comments? Any takers?

A thought

2008-09-27T14:03:00.002-06:00

We all do things that are hurtful to others, usually unintentionally. The hard part is getting to know someone well enough that we know what is hurtful to them so that we can avoid doing those things.

Unfortunately that also means we have to carefully consider who we consider our friends to be because reaching that point of understanding with another may necessitate a wrong relationship.

Incarceration

2008-09-25T15:44:00.004-06:00

Somehow, and through no instigation of my own, at my usual breakfast meeting this past week we got off on the subject of the justice system and incarceration verses restorative justice.

Between two ordained minsters, our resident sage and myself not one of us could think of a single verse or passage of scripture that actually advises humanity to use incarceration as a remedy to criminal behaviour. As best as we could determine scripture only has three prescriptions:

Execution
Flogging
Restorative justice

Exactly how I expect this to benefit you, my gentle readers, I am not sure, except to get you thinking about how many other elements of our society that we take for granted are positive may in fact not be.

The Canadian penal system is broken; in fact the fact that we have a penal rather than a restorative system is an indication of just how broken the system is. I understand the need to minister to the victims but by incarcerating all we are doing is warehousing the problem and perpetuating the lie that criminals can not be reformed and therefore should not be released into society.

"___" vow to toughen youth justice act or as I call it, "F**k Scripture"

2008-09-22T17:36:00.007-06:00

A few points before I begin:

This policy is put forward by a party that I believe has the largest contingent of evangelical members, the largest contingent of evangelical candidates and is therefore the party I believe the vast majority of evangelical clergy and leaders implicitly encourage their congregations to vote for.
Matthew 25 commands us to visit prisoners, not put them there in the first place. In fact I know of no place in the Bible where we are called to incarcerate people, execute yes, but not incarcerate. And on the subject of executions, please I beg you read the passages, the victim is called to be the executioner; it is revenge based.
Roughly half the New Testament was written by a serial killer. A serial killer that to our knowledge was never held to account for a single second for being a serial killer.
Matthew 9:12 tells us that not only did Jesus come for the sinners (those who break the laws) and not the righteous (those who keep the laws) but also that we are to be merciful - something I do not believe this policy is.

Nowhere, is there any mention of money for rehabilitation programs for those already incarcerated.
Thieves do not necessarily belong in the same cells as those charged with murder and rape. - Carebear does an auto thief with a similar heart and temperament to your son but with infinitely less self-discipline belong locked up with murders and rapists?
The primary goal of any penal system law should be the rehabilitation of the accused, and if you call yourself a Christian you are also supposed to take it one step further and believe the goal is redemption.
Sentencing should be focused on rehabilitation, not deterring and denouncing unlawful conduct.
By defining "violent offence" as an offence "involving conduct that endangers or is likely to endanger the life or safety of another person" it can be argued that every underage car thief (get used to this kid I loved him) is a dangerous offender and for that matter so could the premier of Saskatchewan's daughter.
Positive point - there is nothing wrong with detaining someone charged with a truly violent offence prior to trial
"[M]aximum enhanced youth sentences of up to 14 years for violent offences, and maximum enhanced youth sentences of life for first- or second-degree murder", translation, "we do not believe that rehabilitation or redemption of even our youngest criminals is possible"
The purpose of the publication ban was that at one time we, the citizens of Canada, believed that any minor who committed a crime could be rehabilitated and therefore should not have the mistakes of their youth held against them for their entire lives.
Publishing the names of the convicted can and frequently does result in revealing who the victims and witnesses are, which can result in retaliation against the victims and witnesses by those close to the convicted.

This is just one policy, albeit a large one, that masquerades as "an angel of light" by this party that so many who call themselves Christian support. A party that many "Christians" believe supports their values and they are correct this party does support their values, the problem is that they are not the values scripture teaches that we ought to have.

Elections should be fought on the basis of proposed policies so I have no issue with this policy itself. It is a policy, a basis on which we are to choose our leaders. My issue is the fact that this policy originates from a party lead by a supposed evangelical man with a large evangelical following, people who claim to live by the tenets of scripture and not their personal prejudices and whims.

2008-09-19T10:13:00.001-06:00

Somewhere, somehow I have come to the false understanding that the Holy Spirit is supposed to make righteousness easy, this despite passages such as Hebrews 12:4

``You have not yet resisted to the point of bloodshed in your struggle against sin''.

The problem is that I have not only been deceived, I also want to be deceived, I want to believe that the Holy Spirit is going to make righteousness easy.

Hurricane Ike

2008-09-13T19:17:00.002-06:00

I have the time and I have experience. The only thing I lack is the money.

I want to go to Houston and Galveston to clean-up.

Why am I posting this here?

Because I do not believe this is a prayer that should be prayed in my "closet", rather it is a prayer that needs to be prayed on the "street corner". You see I know there are others that have the desire and the money but they lack the time and the experience; we need to find each other.

I even have a trailer full of tools that are going into winter storage soon.

God you ask for our availability and I am available.

Quote

2008-09-11T13:45:00.002-06:00

We sin because we don’t have anything better to do.

Ponder that for a while. This applies not just to sexual sin but to gluttony, pride, sloth, envy, bitterness, and every other evil inclination. We sin because we are bored and can’t think of anything better to do. As long as we are bored, we will justify anything we can think of simply to keep us occupied. Remember that David sinned with Bathsheba precisely because he had nothing better to do. He stayed home when it was the time of year when kings go out to war (2 Samuel 11:1). We focus on the adultery, but that was the result of his own boredom. He didn’t have anything better to do that night, he took a walk, he saw Bathsheba, and the rest is history.

We sin because we don’t have anything better to do.

... [T]he world is dying, millions are suffering, and people everywhere need the Lord.

What you do impacts your walk with God, your [relationships], the standard you set for your children, and your testimony to other believers... [I]t matters to the world because the world is waiting and watching to see if what we believe makes any difference in the way we live. If we live like the world, how will the world ever see the true life-changing power of Jesus Christ?

-Dr. Ray Pritchard, president of Keep Believing Ministries

2008-09-07T16:13:00.004-06:00

With an election all but guaranteed for October 14 in Canada the question now becomes how does one vote. There are various views but I would like to point my gentle readers back to scripture, Matthew 25 to be specfic.

25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry<3983> and you gave me food, I was thirsty<1372> and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger<3581> and you invited me in, 25:36 I was naked<1131> and you gave me clothing, I was sick<770> and you took care of me, I was in prison<5438> and you visited me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’

I would argue that these are the primary criteria that those of us who name the name of Christ are commanded to be concerned with and are therefore excellent starting points for those of us who live in a representative democracy to select our candidates by.

So how does each party or candidate stack up according to these issues, what are their policies on addressing

Poverty
Immigration
Health care
The well-being (and I will argue the rehabilitation) of prisoners?

I hope that I am proven wrong but as it stands right now the only party that has a Christian leader and I believe has the largest contingent of Christian members is, ironically, the only party a Christian can not vote for in good conscience according to the above criteria, they are in favor of:

Cuts to programs that help the poor
Tighter immigration laws
Cuts to health care
Longer and more punitive sentences for prisoners and cuts to rehabilitation programs

And to my knowledge nor have they offered anything that could be called incentives or encouragement to churches and para-church organisations to get involved in these issues; not that that is necessarily the role of a political party. However one would expect that a party lead by an evangelical Christian, who is aspiring to live up to the standard scripture puts before us, would do something to encourage other Christians to get involved if it is the party's policy to retreat.

What is God doing???

2008-08-27T23:17:00.003-06:00

July long weekend I decided that unless I have a reason to stay in Saskatoon this winter I am going to go away. One of the things that I needed to concern myself with though was finding someone willing to take over my responsibilities at the jail because the prison ministry would be a reason to stay. Over breakfast this morning one of the men was peppering me with questions regarding what is involved and I think he is interested.

Then this evening I was listening to a skypecast and one of the other audience members, a pastor, contacted me afterwards and we spoke for close to an hour. He ended our conversation by inviting me to India. How God would do this I have no clue, but it is cool to think that God might just have a trip to India in store for me this winter.

Charismatic

2008-08-22T22:16:00.004-06:00

For the entirety of my Christian experience I have been aware of the controversy that is manifestations of the Holy Spirit. But I have very recently come to a new understanding and one that will not sit well many who are into experiencing manifestations of the Spirit. The sad part is that it was right under my nose during my years in the Alliance church. It has also proved true a statement made by a pastor whose teaching I once sat under: Read dead people.

In the particular case I am referring to the statement should be, "listen to dead people", but the point remains the same. In A.W. Tozer's message "Who and what the Holy Spirit is" he teaches that Jesus was the most winsome and approachable person who ever lived and because the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead the Holy Spirit should make us the most winsome and approachable people living. What this means is that "freaky" spiritual behaviour is not spiritual, the Holy Spirit should never cause us to do anything that would make the average person uncomfortable.

It is God's intention and plan that all should worship and be in fellowship with him therefore he would never cause a person to bark like a dog, jump up and down uncontrollably or behave in some other odd manner. I am more than willing to concede holy laughter; people spend ridiculous sums of money on entertainment in order to laugh so it is only logical that God might cause men to laugh. But much of the rest of the behaviour that people claim is spiritual is anything but.

But what I really find tragic is that I spent all those years attending Alliance churches and do not recall ever once being taught this. Agree or disagree with Mr. Tozer but he is a demigod in the Alliance church - one of their own who is reputed to be one of the greatest theological minds of the twentieth century. He uses scripture to make his case and no one can deny that he was a man of God.

Today many seek manifestations at the expense of all else when they should be seeking God at the expense of all else and if what Mr. Tozer teaches is true those who are seeking manifestations are in grave error. In fact I have recent been taught by two different and completely unrelated sources that if a spiritual experience does not cause a person to share God with others they never had a holy spiritual experience in the first place.

I was recently conversing with an individual who made a pilgrimage to Lakeland Florida to hear Todd Bentley and the supposed revival that is occurring down there - but it is no revival. I was reading a review, if you will, by a Christian author and they stated that outside of a very small charismatic circle (a very very small one - it seems that the majority of the charismatic churches in Lakeland are opposed to this "revival), it is having no effect whatsoever - the pagans that the participants work and associate with are either oblivious or indifferent to the "revival". The "choir" is having an experience, manifestations are occurring, but it is having no impact whatsoever on Lakeland. Weird things are happening and outrageous and outlandish claims are being made, but nothing that is getting the attention of those who need to be evangelised, those who need to be called into worship and fellowship with God.

Our manifestations should get the attention of the pagan community and cause them to either be drawn in or repulsed. And like Jesus if we are spirit filled we should cause a reaction be it positive or negative, but a reaction nonetheless and no one should be able to accuse us of being repulsive because of how the Holy Spirit manifests himself in our lives. We may be repulsive because we are sinfilled jerks being recreated into our Genesis state but no one should take exception to our spiritual behaviour without taking exception to Jesus first.

Rocking the boat

2008-08-12T21:57:00.004-06:00

As my self and another were setting up for our prison ministry this evening we were discussing the gaping chasm of need that exists in the area of prisoner visitation verses the "need" for church workers, those who run children and youth programs, lead worship, etcetera.

It is my opinion that any area of ministry (and "Children's Ministry" and "Worship Ministry" are misnomers - they are responsibilities, but not ministries) we leave unaddressed the enemy is certain to address. When I first began looking into prison ministry a couple years ago I found many pagan ministries, in fact I found more pagan than Christian ministries, even tonight as my partner and I were looking for a Bible to give an inmate we found a stack of Korans in the chaplain's office.

Jesus commands us to be concerned with the welfare of the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the foreigner, the sick and the prisoner, but how many of us really are? We concern ourselves with the worship, the appearance of our church building, the well-being of those we fellowship with, etcetera - all of which are good things but they are not the things Jesus, God incarnate, commanded us to be concerned with. The thing that I find most sad though is that we often concern ourselves with the "good" things at the expense of the "commanded" things.

It is so easy to evangelise in a prison; everyone there has been deemed such an awful sinner that the unredeemed society we live in has determined that they are not fit to walk the streets. You can call an inmate a sinner with complete boldness because they can not deny that they are, they have been found to be a sinner by the judicial system.

What I am driving at is, "how many of those involved in church "ministry" are actually called to be there and how many are rebellious and seeking their own glory and affirmation. As my partner pointed out,

what we are doing is really very thankless, the inmates often resent and mock us, the guards are cynical toward us, and the church ignores us; however anything done within the congregation gets affirmed and recognised so people choose that

at the expense of biblical obedience.

Being turned over to our own desires

2008-08-06T21:08:00.003-06:00

Please read this first, in fact maybe open it in a new tab so you can refer back to it. Now bring your mind to a full stop, take it out of gear and take a breath. I am about to take a very sharp left hand turn into the middle of a metaphorical corn field. So unless you are God himself or know me better than I know myself there is no way you are prepared for where I am about to take you.

Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts... They exchanged the truth of God for a lie... Romans 1:24a & 25a

Do not become partners with those who do not believe, for what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship does light have with darkness? And what agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share in common with an unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14 & 15

Before I begin I should mention that I have done some more research online and at times it will seem like I am jumping to conclusions and referring to facts not in evidence, which I am, but they are informed jumps and available facts but it would become too confusing if I were to cite everything and the facts of this specific case are only relevant to my general point. In other words I am using Rev. Dowd as a case study, it is the principles at work in his experience that are important and not the specifics, I am merely using him to provide a contextual framework for my thoughts.

As I see it Rev. Dowd may very well have fallen deeply, hopelessly and madly in love with an unbeliever and then prayerfully sought out the counsel he desired. The above passage out of 2 Corinthians is generally taken as a prohibition against mixed marriages; regardless of his feelings and what leadings he may have felt from the Holy Spirit scripture gave him his answer. However he may very well have been so totally smitten and resistant to scriptural teaching that God decided to "...give [him] over in the desires of [his] heart... [and exchange] the truth of God for a lie...". In short, because Rev. Dowd so strongly desired something that scripture seems to clearly prohibit God decided to let Rev. Dowd be deceived like God did to King Ahad in 1 Kings 22.

My question is how often is this the experience of the garden variety Christian, we know what is right but we do not want to do it and so God allows us to seek out false truths and lying spirits? The path Rev. Dowd chose has now lead him to abandon his pentecostal beliefs and his faith in evangelicalism and has motivated him to begin preaching a Darwinian doctrine. He has not abandoned his faith in God, he has simply created hybrid faith that allows him to reconcile his faith and his love for his wife. But again, how often does the garden variety Christian do this, we seek a perversion that is a hybrid of scriptural teaching and our own desires.

I guess my point is that I fear that many of those who would sit and judge Rev. Dowd are in fact guilty of the very same sins on a smaller and less public scale. None of us are perfect and not one of us can claim to be the guardian of all that is "Christian". In fact I would argue that most Christians are ignorant of the true test of one's Christianity, the one Jesus gave in Matthew 25; the only place I know of where Jesus explicitly tells us what we must do to escape the flames of hell.

Which leads me back to my title, has the church become so emotionally lead and have the "faithful" become so biblically illiterate or belligerent toward scripture that the vast majority of the body of Christ, myself included, have in fact been turned over to their own desires?

What is God's opinion?

2008-07-30T21:46:00.003-06:00

We assume that it is God's will for every sick person to be well but life is terminal. Each day I check the obituaries for a friend's name because it appears to be God's opinion that she, who has been healthy her entire life, die at 40 while her husband who was born sick live on.

Occasionally I have need to cross paths with someone I am estranged from because when we were not [in my humble opinion] my opinion was irrelevant and it seems to be the opinion of some Godly people that I live on in the estrangement because, "no matter what [I] say or do it will be the wrong thing". But what is God's opinion? Is estrangement his opinion? It could be if the root of the problem is a hard heartedness, selfish opinions, wickedness and a refusal to ask his opinion when he should have been asked. But what is God's actual opinion?

I think I can safely say I lost another relationship this past week and I can quote 2 Timothy 2:23, "... reject foolish and ignorant controversies..." and 1 Corinthians 13:11, "... set aside childish ways." as the reason why but really the question remains, what is God's opinion. I can use the above passages to argue that what happened is what righteousness demanded, but I have also come to understand that one of the questions a rabbinical candidate can be be asked is to twist scripture to argue that pork is kosher; so the question remains what is God's opinion?

That really is the only question any worshiper of any deity need ask, "What is my God's opinion"?

Admittedly it is sick, but it is also both true and funny

2008-06-08T19:22:00.001-06:00

How does one rough house with God?

2008-06-08T18:31:00.003-06:00

I read something somewhere that indicated that the natural way for children play with their fathers is by rough housing.

And I have to say that that is the way I naturally play with children. I have friends whose children I routinely body slam onto the trampoline; randomly grab, turn upside down and carry around by their ankles, and recently picked their baby up by his sleeper and dangled him a few centimeters over his baby chair thingy - to the infant's apparent delight. Most recently the father and I embraced in bear hug with a child between us, making a kid sandwich.

I know this is something that many of those who only have x chromosomes have a hard time understanding. A few years ago I was seeing a woman and I freaked her single mother friend out by balancing the mother's three year old son on my feet, with my legs fully extended as I laid on my back on the ground - the child enjoyed it but the mother was furious.

Men often express affection or attention (as in the above paragraph) through physical contact, as in the full contact sports definition, rather than touch.

So to carry this theme through to God, the heavenly father, how do we rough house with God?

I sat through a sermon preached by a woman earlier this year where she talked about falling in love with Jesus and frankly the sermon sounded extremely homo-erotic to this man's ears. Men can love each other and are often not even ashamed to admit it, but we demonstrate and even state it in a unique way, a way that is macho if you will - an often almost violent way.

But how are we to express love for God, and dare I say worship, in a violent and physical manner?

I have my Dapper Dan Back!!!

2008-05-01T20:13:00.004-06:00

Both my mother and I are now rejoicing, her because after 4 moves since the children fled the nest she has finally gotten rid of all the toys and me because I have my Dapper Dan back!!!!
I never had a Teddy Bear, I just had Dapper Dan.

Apparently he used to have hair, but my mother says I pulled it all out by dragging him around by it.

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

2008-03-25T21:40:00.001-06:00

Story Highlights:

Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident
Wal-Mart's health plan sued Shank and her family to recoup what it paid out
The Shanks got money in suit; Wal-Mart says policy means couple can't get benefits
Couple's son was killed in Iraq after they lost lawsuit to Wal-Mart

By Randi Kaye
CNN

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. Watch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmart.insurance.battle/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Why Do Fundamentalist Christians Hate God So Much?

2008-01-02T11:47:00.000-06:00

Obviously this is not me, but I think it is worth a read for any of us who claim to be Christians.

Fundie Christians are an interesting bunch. On the one hand, they profess to love God "with all their heart," and yet, on the other, they regularly send around unhinged e-mails about how God causes natural disasters or other tragedies as a way to punish the U.S. for abortion, or "taking prayer out of schools," or some other perceived slight against the Almighty. If I were to send an email around accusing you of causing such things, you would consider it libel of the worst sort; certainly you wouldn't believe me if I said I was blaming you for mass murder because I loved you. But somehow, we're supposed to take this blaming of God as a compliment, or at least, expect God to do so.

Further, it never seems to occur to persons such as this that to love such a sadistic and maniacal entity is to be the worst form of enabler, and to call into question one's capacity for empathy, to say nothing of rational thought. To believe that God can both love the world and yet bring floods, earthquakes and other forms of suffering to that world as punishment for sin, is tantamount to believing that the abusive husband loves his wife, even as he pushes her down the stairs. Please note, this analogy is not intended to suggest a parallel between God and husbands, except insofar as they can both (apparently) do some pretty sick shit.

I received one of these mass e-mails a few months ago--a pedantic diatribe about Hurricane Katrina, and how God had sent the Hurricane because he was "removing his protection" from America, thanks to the above-mentioned transgressions, as well as a few others. As someone who lived in New Orleans for ten years, this one was especially personal to me, and thus, even more assaultively ignorant than all the many such missives I had read before. Aside from being irrational, the claim (which supposedly originated with no less a conduit to the Creator than Billy Graham's daughter) casts a huge pall over the basic decency of God, seeing as how the people who suffered most in Katrina were poor black folks: some of the most church-going, Bible believing people in this country. All of which means one of three things (or perhaps a combination of them): either Billy Graham's daughter is a fruit loop, God has really lousy aim, or God is a real asshole.

Of course, here's the truth that the fundies refuse to face: it wasn't God who caused the suffering in that city. It was people, flesh and blood, very un-possessed-by Satan people.

Like the white sheriff of Gretna, on the West Bank of New Orleans, who had his deputies point guns at a group of mostly black folks as they tried to cross the bridge over the river to get to safety.

Like the National Guardsmen who pointed guns at the heads of starving people as they tried to get food from the pantry at the Convention Center, and told them to "back away from the food or I'll blow your f*%&'ng head off."

Like the folks at the Department of Homeland Security who ordered the Red Cross to stay out of the city, even as tens of thousands suffered in the streets and makeshift shelters.

Like whomever it was that made the decision to send New Orleans public school buses to get 7,000 white people from St. Bernard Parish, next to New Orleans, and get them out of town, while poor black folks faced death in the city.

Like the persons who made the decision to rescue white tourists from downtown hotels, and to pick white tourists from Europe out of the crowd at the Superdome and get them to safety first, leaving poor black folks to suffer and die.

People did all of these things. Not God. Not the Devil. People, like you and me, and that's what is so scary about it.

Blaming God's wrath for the tragedies that befall us, whether those are AIDS, tsunamis, poverty, crime, or anything else, is just an attempt by human beings to avoid taking responsibility for the things we do in the world, and the way that we refuse to take care of one another properly. Putting it on God, even as punishment for our presumed sins, is the worst example of responsibility-shirking and passing the buck possible. This is not Ancient Egypt. These are not plagues of locusts. These are human failures.

And of course, if God were angry at us for "taking prayer out of schools," then that same God would have long since sent these storms and such to any of a number of European nations, or perhaps Japan, since none of them are as religious as the United States. But God doesn't do that, at least not with the regularity that he appears to be "punishing" us. Piety apparently does little to protect us from disasters, disease, crime, and all forms of assorted heartbreak.

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but please note that Columbine High School was smack dab in the middle of an extremely Christian community, Littleton, Colorado. But that community's religiosity didn't protect it from the horror we have come to associate with their name and that of their school. Indeed, most all of the mass murder shootings in schools have occurred in heavily Christian places, like Santee, California, Pearl, Mississippi, Giles County, Tennessee and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, just to name a few. They have not, noticeably taken place in ostensibly "Godless" places like San Francisco, or West Hollywood, or New York City. Wonder why? My guess: God is mad at conservative Christians, and therefore punishing their communities for presuming to know what he's thinking, and for always bringing him into it, whenever something goes wrong. But of course, I'm just speculating here. How would I know? I wouldn't, and that is precisely the point.

And to pick, as they do, 1962 as the starting point of the nation's decline (because that was the year that mandatory prayer was taken out of schools) is entirely selective. Why not pick 1945? Why not say that God is punishing the U.S. for incinerating 200,000 innocent Japanese civilians in Hiroshima? That would make just as much sense, which is to say, not much. Or why not pick some other year? And why is it that in the 1920s, when the U.S. was a more blatantly Christian nation, with regular prayers being offered up every day in schools, we still got the Great Depression, and the Dust Bowl in all those Bible-thumping, God fearing Midwestern towns?

Oh, and let's remember, those same Christian schools with all that prayer were typically segregated, which is to say they were committing the sin of racism for years, all under the cloak of their own religiosity. Which is to say that prayer often emanates from the mouths of those who know not the God they claim to follow. Why didn't God send his punishments far earlier, in response to those types of sins? Is God more offended by sex and a lack of prayer in schools than by lynching, slavery and segregation? Or the commission of genocide against Native Americans?

Maybe that's it: maybe everything bad that happens to us is punishment for helping to wipe out millions of indigenous people. In which case, repairing that breach is going to take a lot more than prayers.

In point of fact, since 1962, when children were no longer forced to pray to Jesus in school, the U.S. has become a stronger economic power, and violence in schools today, contrary to popular belief, is actually less common than it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s, so I guess however angry God must have been after '62, he got over it sometime in the early '90s, and so crime in school, and among young people has actually been dropping as a result. Or wait...better yet...maybe God has nothing to do with these trends at all. Maybe crime and violence are done by people, without an assist from the almighty. Maybe. It's. Not. God's. Doing. Just maybe.

An Uncomfortable Subject

2007-12-30T21:35:00.000-06:00

I, along with a couple I am friends with, were visiting another couple last night and the hostess was telling the husband of the visiting couple specifically and myself generally about her concern for two young sisters in their neighbourhood that she is practically convinced are being molested. The hostess was wondering what else she could do now that social services have been notified. And I wanted to have something to say, I am convinced that Jesus would have have had something to say, but what?

I also find myself concerned with who will minister to the molester. He will be judged, but will he be ministered to?

Ministering to the victims of molestation is natural, the hostess' (who is indifferent, at best, to the gospel) reaction was to, in Christian terms, minister to the victims. I see this as a variation on Luke 6:32, 33 & 35:

"...For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same... But love your enemies, and do good... Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people."

"...For even sinners minister to victims. And if you minister to victims, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same... But minister to the perpetrators, and do good... Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people"

My question now is what can be done for the perpetrator. Jesus came for the sinners not the righteous, he kept the company of the most despised people in his culture and who is more despised in my culture than a child molester?

And for anyone who might be wondering who I could possibly be talking about, if you are reading this that tells me I am the only person indicated in this little tale that you have ever knowingly crossed paths with.

Galatians 2:20

2007-12-17T10:01:00.000-06:00

I sure have been posting a lot on this lately; a blog that was scheduled to go dormant. Regardless.

Christians have been crucified with Christ so

it is no longer they who live, but Christ who lives in them.
the life they live in the body, they live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved them and gave himself for them

However scripture and experience diverge, this is not a case of seeming, but of fact. There is very little difference between the garden variety Christian and the garden variety pagan, therefore it can be concluded that Christ is not alive in the garden variety Christian. Most of us are in fact dead in Christ.

As I have asked elsewhere on this blog, how does modern monotheism trump atheism like ancient monotheism trumped paganism. I am not interested in philosophical arguments, but rather practical matters; if the garden variety Christian had the ability to heal cancer for example they could defeat any atheistic argument by simply respectfully listening to the arguments and proceeding to heal someone through the very power that the atheist denies.

I have a copy of a message, and actually so does the majority of my congregation, that compares our Christian life to our biological life. We do not look fondly back on the days of our infancy, but many, many Christians look back with fondness on their days of spiritual infancy. The evidence of our life in Christ ought to be Christ pouring out of us.

A lack of human anger (James 1:20)
Caring for widows and orphans and keeping ourselves unstained by the values of the secular world (James 1:27)
A lack of prejudice (James 2:1)
Works of righteousness (James 2:14-26)
A lack of jealousy and selfishness (James 3:16)
Peacefulness, gentleness, accommodation, mercifulness, good fruit, impartiality, and a lack of hypocrisy (James 3:17)
Resistance of the devil (James 4:7)
Nearness to God (James 4:8)
Lacking criticism (common definition) of one another (James 4:11)
Lacking arrogance and boasting (James 4:16)
Acceptance of condemnation and murder (James 5:6)
Praying through suffering and praising when in good spirits (James 5:13)
Requesting the anointing of oil and prayer by elders when sick (James 5:14)
Confession of sins one unto another (James 5:16)
Turning the backslidden back to the faith and covering a multitude of sins (James 5:19&20)

And as I complete that list I realise that nowhere does it indicate that the garden variety Christian should be able to heal another's cancer; although John 14:12 does indicate that they should be able to, if they believe that Christ can/could when he walked this earth.

I do not even know if this post even makes any sense to anyone other than me and that is more a result of my working my way through James than any linear, or non-linear for that matter, thought process I may have gone through.

However the question does remain how does Christianity objectively trump atheism and all other philosophical and faith structures and why do so many of us appear to be dead in Christ?

Full quote is now up, click here or scroll down

2007-12-15T17:16:00.000-06:00

8 shot, 2 Die In Church, Mission Attacks

2007-12-09T19:12:00.000-06:00

By GEORGE MERRITT, Associated Press Writer

A gunman killed two staff members at a missionary training center early Sunday after being told he couldn't spend the night, and about 12 hours later four people were shot at a busy megachurch in Colorado Springs.

Colorado Springs police Lt. Fletcher Howard said a suspect had been detained in the shootings at the New Life Church, but a church member who was locked down at the church Sunday afternoon said a security guard had shot and killed the gunman. Authorities in Arvada, a Denver suburb about 65 miles north, said no one had been captured in the shootings there.

It was not immediately known whether the shootings were related, but Arvada authorities said they were sharing information with Colorado Springs investigators.

The program that runs mission training in Arvada has a small office at the New Life Church's World Prayer Center.

A gunman in a black trench coat and a high-powered rifle entered the church's main foyer about 1 p.m. and began shooting, according to the church member, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the police department had asked that it release all information.

The church's 11 a.m. service had recently ended, and hundreds of people were milling about when the gunman opened fire. Nearby were parents picking up their children from the nursery.

The gunman was killed by a member of the church's armed security staff, the source said. Four people were shot, and the source did not know whether the shooter was one of the four. A SWAT team was searching the building for an explosive device, but the source could not confirm any details.

Howard, who had characterized the shootings as occurring outside the church, declined to say whether the suspect had been shot.

Three people were taken to Penrose Community Hospital in Colorado Springs, where they were listed in critical, fair and good condition, said hospital spokeswoman Amy Sufak.

The first shooting happened at about 12:30 a.m. at the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada, a Denver suburb, police spokeswoman Susan Medina said.

A man and a woman were killed and two men were wounded, Medina said. All four were staff members with the center, said Paul Filidis, a Colorado Springs-based spokesman with Youth With a Mission.

Arvada Police Chief Don Wick said the suspect spent several minutes speaking with people inside the dorm. Peter Warren, director of Youth With a Mission Denver, said the man asked whether he could spend the night. Several youths called on Tiffany Johnson, the center's director of hospitality.

"The director of hospitality was called. That's when he opened fire," Warren said. Johnson, 26, was killed.

Warren said he didn't know whether any of the students or staff knew the gunman. "We don't know why" he came to the dormitory, Warren said.

Witnesses told police that the gunman was a 20-year-old white male, wearing a dark jacket and skull cap, who left on foot. He may have glasses or a beard.

Police with dogs searched the area through the night, and residents of nearby homes were notified by reverse 911 to be on the lookout. Medina said residents were asked to look out their windows for any tracks left in the snow during the night. About 4 inches of snow had fallen in the area in the past day.

New Life Senior Pastor Brady Boyd said security at the church had been beefed up after the shootings in Arvada, but he did not elaborate and did not take questions.

"Fortunately for New Life Church, we had a plan in place that was put into play immediately," he said. "Our prayers right now are for the people that were injured and their families.

New Life was founded by the Rev. Ted Haggard, who was fired last year after a former male prostitute alleged he had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with him. Haggard, then the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, admitted committing undisclosed "sexual immorality."

The New Life church is one of Colorado's largest with about 10,000 members.

In addition to Johnson, killed in Arvada was Philip Crouse, 23. Youth With a Mission said Johnson was from Minnesota and Crouse was from Alaska.

The missionary center identified the wounded as Dan Griebenow, 24, of South Dakota, and Charlie Branch, 22, whose hometown wasn't immediately known. One of the men was in critical condition, and the other was stable, police said.

About 45 people were evacuated from the Youth with a Mission dormitory and moved to an undisclosed location.

The missionary center is on the grounds of the Faith Bible Chapel. Cheril Morrison, wife of chapel pastor George Morrison, said Crouse had just hung up Christmas lights at her home and that Johnson was "an amazingly beautiful person."

Mimi Martin, who lives near the center, said she received the warning call at about 9 a.m. warning neighbors to keep their doors and windows locked.

"Why would anybody want to hurt those kids?" Martin said.

Darv Smith, director of a Youth With a Mission center in Boulder, said people ranging from their late teens to their 70s undergo a 12-week course that prepares them to be missionaries. He said the center trains about 300 people a year.

Filidis said staffers are usually former missionaries themselves and that the "mercy ministries" performed by trainees include orphanage work. He said he didn't know where the group being trained in Arvada was going to be sent.

Youth With a Mission was started in 1960 and now has 1,100 locations with 16,000 full-time staff, Smith said. The Arvada center was founded in 1984.

___

AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski contributed to this report.

"Accept Christ"... has been fatal to many.

2007-11-30T14:25:00.000-06:00

I'll post the rest of quote later, but for now I want to cause a reaction.

"Accept Christ" has become a panacea of universal application, and I believe it has been fatal to many. . . . The trouble is that the whole "Accept Christ" attitude is likely to be wrong.

And caution everyone to think carefully before commenting.

...It shows Christ applying to us rather than us to Him. It makes Him stand hat-in-hand awaiting our verdict on Him, instead of our kneeling with troubled hearts awaiting His verdict on us. It may even permit us to accept Christ by an impulse of mind or emotions, painlessly, at no loss to our ego and no inconvenience to our usual way of life. For this ineffectual manner of dealing with a vital matter we might imagine some parallels; as if, for instance, . . . the prodigal son had "accepted" his father's forgiveness and stayed on among the swine in the far country. - Aiden Wilson Tozer

Now for Something Lighter

2007-11-23T15:18:00.001-06:00

Deuteronomy 28:1-6

2007-11-16T18:55:00.000-06:00

“If you indeed obey the Lord your God and are careful to observe all his commandments I am giving you today, the Lord your God will elevate you above all the nations of the earth. All these blessings will come to you in abundance if you obey the Lord your God: You will be blessed in the city and blessed in the field. Your children will be blessed, as well as the produce of your soil, the offspring of your livestock, the calves of your herds, and the lambs of your flocks. Your basket and your mixing bowl will be blessed. You will be blessed when you come in and blessed when you go out. - Deuteronomy 28:1-6

Obey God and be blessed, I could ask where my blessings are, but the bigger question is where are the modern day martyr's blessings? It seems that this is a false promise, those who are willing to die for their faith seem to be the least blessed.

Prayer

2007-11-03T20:43:00.000-06:00

I read something earlier today and it got me thinking. As a rule the way Christians commonly pray is beyond anemic. When was the last time you heard someone who routinely prays with real power and authority. I have some dear friends who I frequently sup with and the way they have taught their children to pray is anemic. Please understand that that is a statement of fact and not an accusation, I am writing about an idea that is only hours old to me, so I not only have three fingers pointing back at me but a great host more.

Regardless when we pray for people so often we just mention their names and ask God to help them, or comfort them, or something. But when was the last time you really heard someone who knows their position in Christ pray specific blessing upon another and curses off. I am not talking about when praying for healing or something else, I mean praying over children before they go to bed or some other "mundane" prayer.

My friends pray something like, "Dear Jesus please give [child's name] a good sleep and good dreams. Amen". I am talking about praying, "In the name of Jesus I pray blessings of rest and restoration upon [child's name] and as [child's name] mother/father I command all curses that have been spoke into or upon [child's name] this day to depart and in the name of Jesus command any and all forces that would seek to give [child's name] a nightmare to depart". Granted that may be a little long winded and focused more upon the negative (two negative references) than the positive (one reference) but I think you, my reader, get my point.

It has just struck me that maybe part of why we do not experience the promise of John 14:12 is because we do not take up the authority that has been given to us and therefore we do not teach others to do so either.

Just a thought rattling around in my brain.

John 14:12

2007-10-28T09:00:00.000-06:00

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do,

I tell you the solemn truth, the person who believes in me will perform the miraculous deeds that I am doing, and will perform greater deeds than these

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do

Assuredly (adverb) - made sure; certain, confident; sure of oneself

Solemnly (adverb) - sacred in character, according to strict form; formal a solemn ceremony, serious or grave a solemn face, deeply earnest; very sincere a solemn oath, very impressive or arousing feelings of awe because of its great importance or seriousness

Verily (Strong's Number: 281) – firm, metaph. Faithful, verily, amen, at the beginning of a discourse - surely, truly, of a truth

most SUREly, CERTAINly or CONFIDENTly

SACREDly, SERIOUSly, DEEPly earnest or SINCEREly

FIRMly, FAITHFULly, SUREly, TRUly

These are the words of Jesus, God incarnate. According to Jesus those who believe (to take as true, real, have confidence in a statement or promise of (another person), to suppose or think) in him will not only turn water into wine, raise men from the dead, feed five thousand people, but the student will surpass the master. This is a definitive statement, either those who believe in Jesus will do these things or Jesus lied and the Bible is false.

So the question now begs to be asked, why are we not seeing this reality in North America? I hear reports of this being the reality in far flung places, so are those reports lies and is scripture a lie, or is there something wrong that "he who believes in Me, the works that I do he [does not] do also; and greater works than these he [does not] do"?

Town torn over 'confession' by accused killer arsonist, 10

2007-10-01T18:43:00.000-06:00

GREENVILLE, Ohio (CNN) -- A 10-year-old boy charged with arson and murder in the deaths of his mother and four others was released to the custody of his grandmother Monday in a case that has shocked and divided a small Ohio town.
The child denies all the charges, the boy's attorney, David Rohrer, told Darke County Juvenile Court Judge Michael McClurg on Monday morning. Rohrer also said that while the boy was read his rights before questioning, his age prevented him from fully understanding the situation.
About three dozen people gathered outside the county government center cheered when it was announced outside that the boy would be freed immediately from a juvenile facility in nearby Troy.
The boy escaped the September 16 fire that killed his mother, Chanan Palmer; his half-sister Kaysha, 8, and three children of Christy Winans: Kayla Winans, 6; Je'Shawn Davis, 5; and Jasmine Davis, 3.
Christy Winans and her boyfriend escaped the blaze with minor or no injuries.
Neighbors in Greenville, Ohio, about 30 miles from Dayton, said the duplex became a raging inferno within five minutes.
Darke County Prosecutor Richard Howell told the Dayton Daily News last week that the boy didn't give investigators a clear motive. But when asked whether he was certain the boy was behind the fire, Howell told the newspaper, "Yes, I am."
Winans' mother, Sabrina Jones, screamed at the boy's supporters outside the court Monday.
"My grandkids didn't even see the ago of 10," Jones yelled at the crowd as she hurried to her car.
While police have said the boy confessed to setting the blaze, his supporters say he gave in under three days of questioning.
"He was just made a scapegoat for the whole thing," said Burke L. Goines, the boy's uncle. "It's traumatizing to put a 10-year-old boy in a situation like this, to make other people look better in their investigation," Goines said.
"A lot of people know what really happened, and no one will come forward," said Vicky Perez, who described herself as a friend and neighbor of the boy's family.
William Zink, pastor of the New Life Pentecostals of Greenville, said the boy was a regular churchgoer, overcoming difficulties including the death in July of his stepfather from AIDS and what he said was the family's "wild lifestyle."
"It was not just your 'American pie' family," Zink said. He said the boy had no bed and slept on the couch in the duplex.
The boy will now be under house arrest and staying with grandmother Tammy Reed. He will be home-schooled at the grandmother's home, the court said.
A forensic and psychological examination was scheduled for Friday.
The judge Monday did nothing to change the charges against the boy: one juvenile count of arson and five counts of murder. The arson count carries a minimum of one to three years in detention. The murder counts could keep the boy in custody until age 21.
But the boy could be labeled a serious youth offender under Ohio law, which could lead to imprisonment for life.
Zink said the boy is worth saving from the juvenile justice system.
"You can't want a kid to be a scapegoat for something this horrific," he said.
"This little boy got taken away from his family and community," neighbor Perez said. "We just want him to come home."

I think what really strikes me about this story is that in the mind of a neglected (he did not even have a bed) 10 year old boy arson could have been a vary rational act. And in addition to the guilt that he may one day feel and live with for the fire he is at risk of spending the rest of his life incarcerated. This in addition to the fact that he was involved in a church, and as a Christian that counts for something.

I fear the punishment may be too big for the young criminal - who is to say that this is not a 10 year old's personal application of some biblical story where God judges people with fire? Who is say that a fire was the only path his young mind could conceive of to escape his circumstances? He needs understanding first and then consequences.

Hippy, playboy Jesus ad riles Belgian bishops

2007-09-22T12:12:00.000-06:00

Click on title to view offending picture

AFP - Friday, September 21 09:41 pm
BRUSSELS (AFP) - Catholic bishops in Belgium have protested a TV ad depicting a pot-bellied, hippy Jesus performing miracles and picking up scantily-clad girls up in a nightclub, a church spokesman said Friday.
"We have expressed our disapproval to the president of RTL's administrative council" Jacques Santer and the ethical advertising body, demanding the withdrawal of this publicity campaign, Father Eric de Beukelaer told AFP.
RTL, one of the biggest media groups in Europe, is running the ad on its main Belgian channel to promote Plug youth television, portrayed in the offending item as the coolest thing that even Jesus, with all his powers, could hope for.
"The Belgian Church is used to retaining a sense of humour on religious subjects," De Beukelaer said.
"In the name of freedom of expression, it avoids attacking cartoonists, but advertising is different," he added.
"An advert for cheese or pate featuring gourmet priests or nuns is one thing, but to turn Jesus into a walking billboard, that crosses the line," he said, stressing that along with tolerance must be respect for the sensitivities of believers.
"To see Jesus depicted as a good-for-nothing, backwards adolescent, that crosses the limits of respectability," he added.
The advertisement ends with God admonishing his son Jesus for demanding a subscription to Plug TV, thundering "you still want more!"
Plug TV and RTL-TVI defended the advert, also being shown in cinemas, arguing that it was not blasphemous but contained a message about a "laid-back Jesus addressing youth."
De Beukelaer said that neither RTL nor the ethics panel had responded to a letter from the bishops, adding that the Catholic Church wanted to make its point without having to resort to legal measures.

Objectively Speaking, How Does Modern Monotheism Trump Atheism like Old Testament Monotheism Trumped Polytheism?

2007-07-07T10:02:00.000-06:00

The specific superiority of Yahweh, the God of the Abraham, over all other God's in the Old Testament was his ability to see, hear and speak. But what is his superiority today now that the primary challenge to the God of Abraham comes from atheism?

We have a God that we can not physically see and accept it on often nebulous faith that he can hear and speak to us.

The short answer is the Holy Spirit who resides in all believers, but that can be called a cop out. How do “spirit filled” Christians show their theism to be objectively superior to atheism, like Elijah showed Yahweh to be objectively superior to the prophets of Baal?.

How does modern monotheism trump atheism like Old Testament monotheism trumped polytheism?

Before commenting read these definitions:

Objective:

Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Based in observable phenomena

(Then fire from the Lord fell from the sky. It consumed the offering, the wood, the stones, and the dirt, and licked up the water in the trench (1 Kings 18: 38) - an observable phenomena uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices)

Trump:

To get the better of (an adversary or competitor, for example) by using a crucial, often hidden resource.

(Then fire from the Lord fell from the sky. It consumed the offering, the wood, the stones, and the dirt, and licked up the water in the trench (1 Kings 18: 38) - got the better of an adversary by using a crucial, often hidden resource)

Business Has A Prayer

2007-06-04T14:55:00.000-06:00

Tracy B. McGinnis | Pink 12.07.06, 6:00 AM ET

Fay Runnion was exactly five months into her new job at HomeBanc as associate satisfaction administrator when she faced a double mastectomy and other major surgeries after being diagnosed with breast cancer. On the day of Runnion's surgery, an associate asked the company chaplain to lead her colleagues in prayer.

It made a big difference to Runnion. "There were people of different faiths, but they all joined together to keep good thoughts for me while I was sick. The chaplain showed up at the hospital at a follow-up surgery and waited with my husband until I came out of surgery," she recalls.

Because of such support, she believes the company sees her as more than just a job description. "They look at the whole person," Runnion says. "It's an accepting environment where it's OK to say, 'I'm struggling.'"

Today, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 chaplains are working with businesses, assisting employees through hard times with counseling, referrals and prayer. The winter holidays highlight the debate over whether religion should be relegated to after business hours or brought into the office to improve things like employee morale and job retention.

"We saw a trucking company turnover rate go from 118% in 2004 to 82% in 2005, when they started using chaplains," says Dwayne Reece, vice president of Corporate Chaplains of America, whose goal is to have 1,000 full-time chaplains serving more than 1 million employees by 2012. "So many personal problems lead people to change jobs, but this can be reduced when someone at the company helps them with the problem. Chaplains are trained to help people think through decisions that could help them stay with the company."

And it's not just Christian-focused companies that are offering a religious outlet. Ford Motor, American Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Texas Instruments, NASCAR, Procter & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, American Express and many others have either Bible study groups, religious affinity groups or Christian e-mail networks, or they have written religious and spiritual messages into their mission statements or codes of ethics.

"Companies are not waiting for a crisis to hit," Reece says. He adds that 60% to 70% of employees use chaplains within 12 months of their implementation at a company.

Mark Scott, vice president of marketing for HomeBanc, attributes his company's low turnover (14%, versus the 20% industry average) to having corporate chaplains. "Our company surveys indicate chaplains are among the most popular benefits we offer," he says.

Companies pay for corporate chaplaincy based on the number of employees being served. Rates generally range from $9 to $11 per employee per month; the average company pays $12,000 per year. HomeBanc pays $150,000 per year, and Chairman and CEO Patrick Flood believes the benefits are worth the cost. "We had a 28-year-old associate die," Flood recalls. "His family came in from Colombia, and chaplains were there to help with everything from finding interpreters to helping family members with the grieving process."

Chaplain Chris Hobgood once met a HomeBanc employee at Starbucks to discuss a problem. The employee hadn't contacted Hobgood through a toll-free assistance number or the HR department, but rather using a 24/7 voice data pager provided by Corporate Chaplains of America.

"I walk through the offices and build relationships with people, talking with them for 30 seconds to three minutes, setting up meetings outside of work to discuss issues further," Hobgood says. But the response to worship in the workplace and openly promoting religion in this way is not always positive. Even Hobgood acknowledges he's seen some negative resistance--especially in the beginning. "People say faith and the workplace have nothing in common," he says, "or, 'He's just here to beat you over the head with a Bible.' Over time, they see I'm there to help."

Denise Dorman, however, found her experience as a copywriter with an overtly Christian advertising agency in Chicago to be very demoralizing. "We had to read the Bible and pray before Monday meetings," she says. "The office manager, the CFO and I opted out, and the three of us felt we were always being watched. It actually turned me off religion." Dorman quit after 12 months.

"It inherently sets up an 'us versus them' dynamic among co-workers, as in, 'You either worship like we do or you're not one of us,'" warns Deah Curry, a holistic psychologist based in Washington state. "This is dangerous, in that it borders on psychological manipulation."

To know that you are welcome to express religious identity is powerful and can be a morale booster, says Douglas A. Hicks, associate professor of leadership studies and religion and director of the Bonner Center for Civic Engagement at the University of Richmond. "The downside is that it can marginalize minorities and those with no religion."

To get around this, Hicks, who is also an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church and author of Religion and the Workplace (Cambridge University Press, 2003), says companies can welcome "spirituality" into the workplace but not endorse specific religious content.

The first study to take an empirical look at religion, spirituality and values in the workplace, A Spiritual Audit of Corporate America by Ian Mitroff and Elizabeth Denton (Jossey-Bass,1999), concluded that many of today's problems are due to "spiritual impoverishment."

"Many people I spoke with desperately want to acknowledge their spirituality at work but are afraid to do so, because they don't want accusations of proselytizing," Mitroff explains.

Companies like Ford see religious affinity groups as a means of embracing the total employee, says Daniel Dunnigan, manager of worldwide volumes at Ford and chairman of the Ford Interfaith Network. "For many people," he says, "faith doesn't stop being important when they go to work."

A version of this story originally appeared in the December/January issue of Pink Magazine.

Students Trade Bibles for Porn

2007-06-02T20:01:00.000-06:00

By Matt O'Conner
Friday, December 2, 2005

SAN ANTONIO — A group of atheists at the University of Texas at San Antonio is putting a novel twist on the toys-for-guns programs run by many urban police departments. But instead of toys, they are handing out porn in exchange for bibles.

“We consider the bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world,” student Ryan Walker said. Walker is part of a student group that calls itself the Atheist Agenda.

Club members this week posted fliers promoting what they call the “Smut for Smut” campaign then set up a table in the student union to collect religious materials and pass out adult magazines such as Black Label and Playboy.

The group is not officially sanctioned by the university and has raised the ire of several religious organizations on campus.

“In my opinion, there are no atheists. There are fools,” Pastor Rick Hawkins of UTSA’s Family Praise Center said. “So, that would be foolish propaganda. I don't know one believer that would take his Bible and turn it in for pornography.”

Hawkins obviously didn’t stop by the Atheist Agenda table, where several students had dropped off copies of the good book and walked away with skin mags.

Athiest Agenda isn’t the first student group to explore the idea of introducing porn to former bible toters. Members say they got the idea from students in Austin who ran a similar pro-porn drive.

Walker added that members thought it sounded like a creative way to exercise their freedom of speech.

Woman sues eHarmony for discrimination - Yahoo! News

2007-06-01T07:10:00.000-06:00

Woman sues eHarmony for discrimination - Yahoo! News

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_hi_te/online_dating_lawsuit_3

Plagiarism 2

2007-05-31T22:21:00.000-06:00

The frayed knot

May 24th 2007 | MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA
From The Economist print edition

As the divorce rate plummets at the top of American society and rises at the bottom, the widening “marriage gap” is breeding inequality

THE students at West Virginia University don't want you to think they take life too seriously. It is the third-best “party school” in America, according to the Princeton Review's annual ranking of such things, and comes a creditable fifth in the “lots of beer” category. Booze sometimes causes students' clothes to fall off. Those who wake up garmentless after a hook-up endure the “walk of shame”, trudging back to their own dormitories in an obviously borrowed football shirt, stirring up gossip with every step.

And yet, for all their protestations of wildness, the students are a serious-minded bunch. Yes, they have pre-marital sex. “I don't see how it's a bad thing,” says Ashley, an 18-year-old studying criminology. But they are careful not to fall pregnant. It would be “a major disaster,” says Ashley. She has plans. She wants to finish her degree, go to the FBI academy in Virginia and then start a career as a “profiler” helping to catch dangerous criminals. She wants to get married when she is about 24, and have children perhaps at 26. She thinks having children out of wedlock is not wrong, but unwise.

A few blocks away, in a soup kitchen attached to a church, another 18-year-old balances a baby on her knee. Laura has a less planned approach to parenthood. “It just happened,” she says. The father and she were “never really together”, merely “friends with benefits, I guess”. He is now gone. “I didn't want to put up with his stuff,” she says. “Drugs and stuff,” she adds, by way of explanation.

There is a widening gulf between how the best- and least-educated Americans approach marriage and child-rearing. Among the elite (excluding film stars), the nuclear family is holding up quite well. Only 4% of the children of mothers with college degrees are born out of wedlock. And the divorce rate among college-educated women has plummeted. Of those who first tied the knot between 1975 and 1979, 29% were divorced within ten years. Among those who first married between 1990 and 1994, only 16.5% were.

At the bottom of the education scale, the picture is reversed. Among high-school dropouts, the divorce rate rose from 38% for those who first married in 1975-79 to 46% for those who first married in 1990-94. Among those with a high school diploma but no college, it rose from 35% to 38%. And these figures are only part of the story. Many mothers avoid divorce by never marrying in the first place. The out-of-wedlock birth rate among women who drop out of high school is 15%. Among African-Americans, it is a staggering 67%.

Does this matter? Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think-tank, says it does. In her book “Marriage and Caste in America”, she argues that the “marriage gap” is the chief source of the country's notorious and widening inequality. Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started. America, argues Ms Hymowitz, is turning into “a nation of separate and unequal families”.

A large majority—92%—of children whose families make more than $75,000 a year live with two parents (including step-parents). At the bottom of the income scale—families earning less than $15,000—only 20% of children live with two parents. One might imagine that this gap arises simply because two breadwinners earn more than one. A single mother would have to be unusually talented and diligent to make as much as $75,000 while also raising children on her own. And it is impossible in America for two full-time, year-round workers to earn less than $15,000 between them, unless they are (illegally) paid less than the minimum wage.

But there is more to it than this. Marriage itself is “a wealth-generating institution”, according to Barbara Dafoe Whitehead and David Popenoe, who run the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. Those who marry “till death do us part” end up, on average, four times richer than those who never marry. This is partly because marriage provides economies of scale—two can live more cheaply than one—and because the kind of people who make more money—those who work hard, plan for the future and have good interpersonal skills—are more likely to marry and stay married. But it is also because marriage affects the way people behave.

American men, once married, tend to take their responsibilities seriously. Avner Ahituv of the University of Haifa and Robert Lerman of the Urban Institute found that “entering marriage raises hours worked quickly and substantially.” Married men drink less, take fewer drugs and work harder, earning between 10% and 40% more than single men with similar schooling and job histories. And marriage encourages both spouses to save and invest more for the future. Each partner provides the other with a form of insurance against falling sick or losing a job.

Marriage also encourages the division of labour. Ms Dafoe Whitehead and Mr Popenoe put it like this: “Working as a couple, individuals can develop those skills in which they excel, leaving others to their partner.” Mum handles the tax returns while Dad fixes the car. Or vice versa. As Adam Smith observed two centuries ago, when you specialise, you get better at what you do, and you produce more.

Perhaps the most convincing work showing that marriage is more than just a piece of paper was done by Mr Lerman of the Urban Institute. In “Married and Unmarried Parenthood and Economic Wellbeing”, he addressed the “selection effect”—the question of whether married-couple families do better because of the kind of people who marry, or because of something about marriage itself.

Using data from a big annual survey, he looked at all the women who had become pregnant outside marriage. He estimated the likelihood that they would marry, using dozens of variables known to predict this, such as race, income and family background. He then found out whether they did in fact marry, and what followed.

His results were striking. Mothers who married ended up much better off than mothers with the same disadvantages who did not. So did their children. Among those in the bottom quartile of “propensity to marry”, those who married before the baby was six months old were only half as likely to be raising their children in poverty five years later as those who did not (33% to 60%).

Changes in family structure thus have a large impact on the economy. One of the most-cited measures of prosperity, household income, is misleading over time because household sizes have changed. In 1947, the average household contained 3.6 people. By 2006, that number had dwindled to 2.6. This partly reflects two happy facts: more young singles can afford to flee the nest and their parents are living longer after they go. But it also reflects the dismal trend towards family break-up. A study by Adam Thomas and Isabel Sawhill concluded that if the black family had not collapsed between 1960 and 1998, the black child-poverty rate would have been 28.4% rather than 45.6%. And if white families had stayed like they were in 1960, the white child poverty rate would have been 11.4% rather than 15.4%.

Children of the sexual revolution

Since the 1960s, the easy availability of reliable contraception has helped to spur a revolution in sexual mores. As opportunities for women opened up in the workplace, giving them an incentive to delay child-bearing, a little pill let them do just that without sacrificing sex. At the same time, better job opportunities for women changed the balance of power within marriage. Wives became less economically dependent on their husbands, so they found it easier to walk out of unhappy or abusive relationships.

As the sexual revolution gathered steam, the idea that a nuclear family was the only acceptable environment in which to raise a child crumbled. The social stigma around single motherhood, which was intense before the 1960s, has faded. But attitudes still vary by class.

College-educated women typically see single motherhood as a distant second-best to marriage. If they have babies out of wedlock, it is usually because they have not yet got round to marrying the man they are living with. Or because, finding themselves single and nearly 40, they decide they cannot wait for Mr Right and so seek a sperm donor. By contrast, many of America's least-educated women live in neighbourhoods where single motherhood is the norm. And when they have babies outside marriage, they are typically younger than their middle-class counterparts, in less stable relationships and less prepared for what will follow.

Consider the home life of Lisa Ballard, a 26-year-old single mother in Morgantown. She strains every nerve to give her children the best upbringing she can, while also looking for a job. Her four-year-old son Alex loves the Dr Seuss book “Green Eggs and Ham”, so she reads it to him, and once put green food colouring in his breakfast eggs, which delighted him. But the sheer complexity of her domestic arrangements makes life “very challenging”, she says.

She has four children by three different men. Two were planned, two were not. Two live with her; she has shared custody of one and no custody of another. One of the fathers was “a butthole” who hit her, she says, and is no longer around. The other two are “good fathers”, in that they have steady jobs, pay maintenance, make their children laugh and do not spank them. But none of them still lives with her.

Miss Ballard now thinks that having children before getting married was “not a good idea”. She says she would like to get married some day, though she finds the idea of long-term commitment scary. “You've got to definitely make sure it's the person you want to grow old with. You know, sitting on rocking chairs giggling at the comics. I want to find the right one. I ask God: ‘What does he look like? Can you give me a little hint?’”

If she does find and wed the man of her dreams, Miss Ballard will encounter a problem. She has never seen her own father. Having never observed a stable marriage close-up, she will have to guess how to make one work. By contrast, Ashley, the criminology student at the nearby university, has never seen a divorce in her family. This makes it much more likely that, when the time is right, she will get married and stay that way. And that, in turn, makes it more likely that her children will follow her to college.

Most children in single-parent homes “grow up without serious problems”, writes Mary Parke of the Centre for Law and Social Policy, a think-tank in Washington, DC. But they are more than five times as likely to be poor as those who live with two biological parents (26% against 5%). Children who do not live with both biological parents are also roughly twice as likely to drop out of high school and to have behavioural or psychological problems. Even after controlling for race, family background and IQ, children of single mothers do worse in school than children of married parents, says Ms Hymowitz.

Children whose father was never around face the toughest problems. For those whose parents split up, the picture is more nuanced. If parents detest each other and quarrel bitterly, their kids may actually benefit from a divorce. Paul Amato of Penn State University has found that 40% of American divorces leave the children better (or at least, no worse) off than the turbulent marriages that preceded them. In other cases, however, what is good for the parents may well harm the children. And two parents are likely to be better at child-rearing because they can devote more time and energy to it than one can.

Research also suggests that middle- and working-class parents approach child-rearing in different ways. Professional parents shuttle their kids from choir practice to baseball camp and check that they are doing their homework. They also talk to them more. One study found that a college professor's kids hear an average of 2,150 words per hour in the first years of life. Working-class children hear 1,250 and those in welfare families only 620.

Co-habiting couples have the same number of hands as married couples, so they ought to make equally good parents. Many do, but on average the children of co-habiting couples do worse by nearly every measure. One reason is that such relationships are less stable than marriages. In America, they last about two years on average. About half end in marriage. But those who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.

Many people will find this surprising. A survey of teenagers by the University of Michigan found that 64% of boys and 57% of girls agreed that “it is usually a good idea for a couple to live together before getting married in order to find out whether they really get along.” Research suggests otherwise. Two-thirds of American children born to co-habiting parents who later marry will see their parents split up by the time they are ten. Those born within wedlock face only half that risk.

The likeliest explanation is inertia, says Scott Stanley of the Centre for Marital and Family Studies at the University of Denver, Colorado. Couples start living together because it is more fun (and cheaper) than living apart. One partner may see this as a prelude to marriage. The other—usually the man—may see it as something more temporary. Since no explicit commitment is made, it is easier to drift into living together than it is to drift into a marriage. But once a couple is living together, it is harder to split up than if they were merely dating. So “many of these men end up married to women they would not have married if they hadn't been living together,” says Mr Stanley, co-author of a paper called “Sliding versus deciding”.

A little help from the government

Most American politicians say they support marriage, but few do much about it, except perhaps to sound off about the illusory threat to it from gays. The public are divided. Few want to go back to the attitudes or divorce laws of the 1950s. But many at both ends of the political spectrum lament the fragility of American families and would change, at least, the way the tax code penalises many couples who marry. And some politicians want the state to draw attention to benefits of marriage, as it does to the perils of smoking. George Bush is one.

Since last year, his administration has been handing out grants to promote healthy marriages. This is a less preachy enterprise than you might expect. Sidonie Squier, the bureaucrat in charge, does not argue that divorce is wrong: “If you're being abused, you should get out.” Nor does she think the government should take a view on whether people should have pre-marital sex.

Her budget for boosting marriage is tiny: $100m a year, or about what the Defence Department spends every two hours. Some of it funds research into what makes a relationship work well and whether outsiders can help. Most of the rest goes to groups that try to help couples get along better, some of which are religiously-inspired. The first 124 grants were disbursed only last September, so it is too early to say whether any of this will work. But certain approaches look hopeful.

One is “marriage education”. This is not the same as marriage therapy or counselling. Rather than waiting till a couple is in trouble and then having them sit down with a specialist to catalogue each other's faults, the administration favours offering relationship tips to large classes.

The army already does this. About 35,000 soldiers this year will get a 12-hour course on how to communicate better with their partners, and how to resolve disputes without throwing plates. It costs about $300 per family. Given that it costs $50,000 to recruit and train a rifleman, and that marital problems are a big reason why soldiers quit, you don't have to save many marriages for this to be cost-effective, says Peter Frederich, the chaplain in charge.

Several studies have shown that such courses do indeed help couples communicate better and quarrel less bitterly. As to whether they prevent divorce, a meta-analysis by Jason Carroll and William Doherty concluded that the jury was still out. The National Institutes of Health is paying for a five-year study of Mr Frederich's soldiers to shed further light on the issue.

Americans expect a lot from marriage. Whereas most Italians say the main purpose of marriage is to have children, 70% of Americans think it is something else. They want their spouse to make them happy. Some go further and assume that if they are not happy, it must be because they picked the wrong person. Sometimes that is true, sometimes not. There is no such thing as a perfectly compatible couple, argues Diane Sollee, director of smartmarriages.com, a pro-marriage group. Every couple has disputes, she says. What matters most is how they resolve them.

At the end of the day, says Ms Squier, the government's influence over the culture of marriage will be marginal. Messages from movies, peers and parents matter far more. But she does not see why, for example, the government's only contact with an unmarried father should be to demand that he pay child support. By not even mentioning marriage, the state is implying that no one expects him to stick around. Is that a helpful message?

Plagiarism 1

2007-05-31T22:13:00.000-06:00

Is there a God?
To believe or not to believe
May 31st 2007
From The Economist print edition

SINCE arguments about God have run for thousands of years, it is a little peculiar to ascribe overwhelming importance to the publication of Darwin's “On the Origin of Species” in 1859. Yet the book did have a soul-sapping effect on unsuspecting Christians. In “Father and Son”, a memoir about loss of faith published anonymously in 1907, Edmund Gosse describes how it drove his father, himself an eminent zoologist, to take him to live on top of a cliff, cutting him off from the world in an attempt to protect him from this heretical notion. The plan didn't work. Some spirit of rebellion stirred in the son, sending his mind wandering during marathon prayer sessions, and he broke free in his teenage years. His father, disappointed, stuck with the God of Abraham.

Looking at the recent crop of books on God and religion, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that whether people end up like Mr Gosse or like his father depends on whether they have an intrinsic feeling for religion or not. Christopher Hitchens, a polemicist whose tone is that of an erudite straight-talker, does not. Like Mr Gosse, he started non-belief young. Near the beginning of “God is Not Great” he describes his rebellion when confronted with an effusive divinity teacher at school who pointed to the beauty of hedgerows in the English countryside as evidence of His creation. Mr Hitchens has been skewering the syllogistic arguments of the religious in the name of science ever since.

Francis Collins, on the other hand, has it. Like Mr Gosse senior, Mr Collins is a scientist and a Christian. He confronts Darwin daily in his work as head of the human genome project. He writes well about how, as the code on which DNA is written began to reveal itself, his faith and sense of wonder increased. He stood by Bill Clinton (and worked with his speechwriters) when the then American president talked about DNA as “the language in which God wrote creation”. Mr Collins has no time for intelligent design but conceives God to be of the non-interfering sort, a kind of divine CCTV camera. Yet he believes that Jesus was His son and he prays regularly.

Belief in God and subscription to a religion are not quite the same thing, although both books treat them as if they were. Mr Hitchens makes the untestable case that the world would be better off without religion altogether. Stupid religious people would stop fighting stupid religious wars and a new enlightenment would ensue. The book is entertaining, meandering and at times disingenuous. Nobody ever went to war for atheism, says Mr Hitchens. But atheists tend to find other reasons to kill each other. To the objection that irreligious fascists and communists found plenty of non-religious reasons for murder in the 20th century, Mr Hitchens retorts that these beliefs were types of secularised religion, and as such do not count.

What is missing from the book is much sense of what a world without religion, or one that had not had religion in it, might look like. Lots of the principles that Mr Hitchens holds dear, like tolerance and justice, are secularised versions of religious ideas. Religious folk often do the right thing for what Mr Hitchens would call the wrong reasons. Taking faith away would in many cases take away the will to do them. That cost is worth considering.

Mr Collins argues for what he calls “theistic evolution”, which he reckons is yet to catch on because it has such a terrible name. Though the mechanism of the origin of life is unknown, he says, once evolution was under way no special supernatural intervention was required. As for those parts of the Old Testament that bend the laws of physics, they are symbolic and should be read as such.

This is a God that would be almost as unfamiliar to Edmund Gosse's father, to John Calvin or the pope as it would to a Roman sacrificing a bull to Mithras. And for all their clarity, Mr Collins's arguments about why he believes in God do little to explain why he is a Christian. To understand that, it is probably enough to look at the Gosse family and conclude that either you get it or you don't.

Quote for the day

2007-01-27T20:17:00.000-06:00

"...the U.S., a country where a sizable percentage of the voting population believes that separating aluminum and plastic into recycling bins is part of a neo-bolshevik subversive plot to establish a one-world government..."

Live Opening Simpsons Scene

2007-01-07T15:46:00.000-06:00

click on picture

Poland ponders giving Jesus an earthly realm

2006-12-20T11:07:00.000-06:00

Last Updated: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 | 10:47 AM ET CBC News

A move is underway to make Jesus Christ the honorary king of Poland, the country's influential Rzeczpospolita newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The paper said the idea already has the backing of 10 per cent of the members in the 460-seat lower house of parliament.

More deputies in parliament would likely join in championing the cause if the country's clergy give their backing to the idea, Rzeczpospolita said.

One deputy, Artur Gorski, said some of his colleagues "were praying in the parliamentary chapel for [Jesus's] coronation," the paper reported.

The move is not without precedence in the staunchly Roman Catholic country of 38.5 million.

In the 17th century, Mary, the mother of Jesus, was made honorary queen of the country after it was believed she helped win a battle with Sweden.

The last pope, John Paul II, was archbishop of Krakow before being elected to the papacy.

Life Immitating Art

2006-12-09T05:39:00.000-06:00

Criminal Minds: Lessons Learned
Originally aired: Wednesday November 22, 2006 on CBS

The team is called in to help find the people behind an escape tunnel and bomb chemical dispersion device found by the DEA in what they had thought was a meth lab.

The investigation leads them to a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay and a plot to blow-up a shopping mall.

Feds: Man planned to blow-up Ill mall

By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer Fri Dec 8, 6:49 PM ET

A Muslim convert who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians was charged Friday in a plot to set off hand grenades at a shopping mall at the height of the Christmas rush, authorities said.

Comments One Only Hears in a Prison Bible Study, or similiar places

2006-12-07T21:12:00.000-06:00

"That is F*cked"
"F*cker. Sh*t, you f*ckin' full of sh*t"
"F*cker, get the F*ck off my b*tch'', (dude's recounting events that put him in jail)
"I'm p*ssed"

Our fearless leader expressed my title at one point in the evening