VACATION!!

Well tomorrow, me and my family are off for vacation. No, it's not the beach, it's actually Branson, Missouri. Some of the extended family is going to be there as well, and it should be real nice. You usually think of vacations as going to the beach, not somewhere in the middle of the nation! But from what I hear it should be a good trip.
It's good to occasionally get away from life for a while- well, from the main part of life. We can't ever escape life. Often to do this, I go up to the lake, although it has a life of it's own sometimes. But occasionally, it's good to be away for a while on an actual vacation. The lake is a home away from home. Vacationing, wherever it is, is a great place to get away from home in general.
Although there is a trip there, and a trip back, and we will constantly be doing something, I think of this as somewhat of a rest. Vacationing is a time to get away from work, and other general things one frequently does at home. Vacationin is a time to relax, but yet go and have fun.
We all need rest, from time to time. Even God Himself rested, after six days of work. God did not have to rest. He was not tired. But He set into motion are method of life. Always take the time to rest. One of the most important things you can do in music is to rest! The same is for life.
But at the same time, we should remember the other truths to this. Resting is not all of life. In fact, it is not even the majority of our life. Out of seven days, God only used one to rest. He rested only to come back and realize that though what He had was good, it was insufficient without a helper for man. Thus, He made woman.
In music, you rest your lips (or your wrists if you are a drummer). But you don't rest your mind. You only prepare yourself for what is to come in the piece you are playing. We all need our times to forget about life for a while, but there are some things we should never forget. We should always stay focused on God, and reming ourselves that when the rest is over, we must go back to work, and try to improve ourselves from before our rest.
Perhaps the greatest thing you can do during resting is to give thanks. We should always be thankful to be working, and to be able to rest when need be. As for myself, I have plenty to be thankful for. I have a home, that I will come back to after vacation. Even if everything about this trips messus up, and it is not much of a rest after all, I still have a home to come back to. I have a family. If it all goes well, we have great memories as a family. If it all messus up, we still have great memories. We may laugh at them one day. I have money. I'm not rich, but God always seems to give me what I need. Beyond all of this, I have salvation, for which I am most thankful for.
I am looking foward to this trip, and I hope for it to be a great trip! But I must also remember to give thanks, which is perhaps the best thing you can do during resting. When God rested, He looked over His creation, that He created. When we rest, we must not only look at what we have done, and be glad we can rest from it now; we must also be thankful for God giving us the opportunity to accomplish what we accomplished.
So while this vacation is a time of rest, it is also a time of reflection, thanksgiving, and the exercising of the mind and body, and in all ways, giving glory to God. I hope this is a great vacation, and I hope to have a good time, and a good rest, preparing me for the next week to come.

-Ryan

Romanicism, A Way of Life

This is for all of the romantics in the world, especially those who TRULY know what a romantic is, and also for all those who are interested in learning about romanticism. Romanticism is not just about loving a specific other in a real intimate way, although that is part of it. Many romantics are not even considered "romantic" people. Candlelight dinners has some roots to romanticism, but is not what romanticism is all about.Romanticism is really about symbolism, not rationalism; emotionalism within intellectual ideas, not pure intellectualism; love, not lust or war; bravery, not running in fear; social manners, not rude behavior; having certain roles in authority, not total equality; chivalry and proper ways of 'courtship' or treating a spouse; not the same roles of the sexes; theism, not athesim. Romanticism teaches that a man treats a woman as princess, and a woman treats a man as an honorable prince. Romanticism teaches lasting love, not just for spouses, but mankind. Romanticism teaches reliance on others, but also a semi-private lifestyle. Romanticism appeals to the emotions more than the intellect.The origin of romanticism can be debated, but there are some good ideas. Romanticism probably has it's origins to the middle ages, where the Feudal System began to take hold. There was a constant struggle between many Christian, or in the least, theists ideas, and agnostic or humanistic ideas. Chivalry was a major part of the lifestyle as well, as men would be brave to go to war to protect their families. Romanticism could be seen in literature as well, such as many of Shakespear's writings.The conflicting ideas had different movements toward the end of the middle ages and early modern time. Theistic ideas were seen in the Great Awakening, and the Protestant Reformation. Intellectual and individualistic ideas had it's movements centered in the Enlightenment, but probably also other small movements. The Founding Fathers of America were influenced by both theistic, romantic movements, as well as humanistic, intellectual movements. Many of our founding fathers were Christian, but there were some who were theistic humanists, and perhaps even a few Deists. These two seemingly conflicting views, however, did find common ground in the Founding Fathers- even those who battled between both sides. Both movements wanted change or reform to the modern Christian Church. One movement wanted it from within, to make a better church, while the other movement wanted to do away with it all together.But these views did not find common ground for long, as as Protestantism swept throught the Southern United States, romanticism began to be heavily dominant in the South, and intellectualism began to be heavily dominant in the North. These culture differences did eventually even lead to the War Between the States. Although the war is noted for being a war on slavery, it was really the cultural differences that instigated a lot of the war. The cultures were entirely different.After the North won the war, they began to use reconstruction, to try to unify the differences. However this came more as a forceful unifying, where the North wanted Southern culture to be like the North. This never worked, and pure romanticism is still alive today. But it did shake romanticism up a bit as well. Now, there are many false forms of romanticism, such as the overly-emotional romantic, the hypocritical romantic, and the lacking romantic. The names pretty much describe themselves. If there was any good in the shaking of romanticism like this, it would be that it made different views on romanticism, and different outlooks to life within one worldview. However, many of the other forms of romantics are false romantics, and do not understand what romanticism really is. It is a way of life, giving proper social structure, through a theistic outlook.The true romantic man treats a woman as a princess. The ture romantic woman respects this kind of man. The true romantic believes in God, and believes that He is working in the world today. The true romantic brings optomism to a pessamistic world, and hope to a world of fear and hate. The true romantic brings proper structure and form, if nothing else for the sake of symbolizing something much more greater. The true romantic believes in right and wrong- morality, as it is commonly called. The true romantic strives to love his neighbor as himself. The true romantic submits to authority, and relates to the emotions of men. The past is never dead to the romantic either. The true romantic realizes that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. He always remember his past, because it is a learning experience, and it is who he is. The true romantic has heritage, and is not ashamed of it. The true romantic in all ways, defends himself, his family, his life, his fortunes, and his sacred honor.

I Miss Football

Well it's June now, and I am already wanting football to come- especially good ole college football. In fact, I've actually been watching old Auburn games just to help ease my desire to watch football. I really miss the 2004 13-0 season for Auburn, and it's got me hoping that maybe this year they can go 14-0. Maybe that is really unlikely but I would sure love it!
Yup, Auburn has many great games of the past- classics, that will always be remembered. This year is sure to have some of those as well. For the time being, being that football is still a little ways away, I can just watch these old classics, which is what I have been doing.
Some classics that stand out for me would be the 1997 Auburn vs. LSU game, in which Auburn won in death valley 31-28; the 1997 Auburn vs. Alabama game, in which Auburn won with a late field goal to win 18-17; the 2000 Auburn vs. Georgia game, in which Auburn won in a see-saw battle in overtime; the 2001 Auburn vs. Florida game, in which Auburn beat top-ranked Florida with a late field goal 23-20; the 2001 Auburn vs. Georgia game, in which Auburn won by holding Georgia at the goal line at the very end; the 2002 Auburn vs. Alabama game, in which Auburn beat heavily favored and highly ranked Alabama 17-7, relying on fourth string tail back Tre Smith; 2003 bowl game against Penn St. (2002 season), in which Ronnie Brown scored late in the fourth quarter to give Auburn a lead, and eventually the 13-9 win (that would be Jim Fyffe's last time to yell "Touchdown Auburn!!!"); the 2004 Auburn vs. LSU game in which Auburn won with a late touchdown, and the extra point after the original miss called back for a penalty, winning 10-9; 2005 Auburn against Georgia, in which Auburn won 31-30 after making a fourth down conversion in a classic see-saw game; 2006 against LSU, in which Auburn won at the end, by some saying Auburn was lucky because of a bad call (but it probably was the right call), winning in a defensive classic 7-3; 2006 Auburn against Florida, in which Auburn beat the number two team, who would eventually win the national championship 27-17, in a game where Auburn shut Florida out in the second half; 2006 against Alabama, in a see-saw game in which Auburn pulled it out by a Cox to Rodreguiz touchdown play, winning 23-15. Man, all the memories, just that I remember, and I may have left out some! There were the few close games Auburn lost (96 vs. UGA, 96 vs, UA, 97 vs. Tenn., 2002 vs. UGA, 2003 vs. Ole Miss, 2005 vs. LSU). There were all those before I really kept up, but that I am familiar with, (93 vs. Alabama, 94 vs. LSU, 94 vs. Fl., 95 vs. Alabama). Man, great memories being an Auburn fan!
And I can hardly wait! And believe it or not, it's not that far away...well maybe two months, and another week or two after that, but that's not too long, right?! And it will be exiting this year, not just for Auburn, but for Alabama, to see if Nick Saban is as good as fans are wanting, and for the last-year-power-teams, such as Florida and LSU from the SEC, as well as Ohio St., USC, and Michigan. We'll have to see how it goes, but I miss football! (Ohh, and I am also looking foward to seeing how rookie NFLers do, especially those from the SEC. I'll write back sometimes with my predictions for this year! It should be great, as always!

True Christian Worship

You may recall the blog I wrote not long ago on disagreements within the church. I closed by adding a couple of blog references related to the subject, and said that I would soon try to write on my perspective on proper, Biblically-valid church worship. So I’m going to give this a shot. I’m not Pastor, but I think I may can bring in a few good points.
First off, I want to make clear, for the sake of the church universal, and for the sake of not making me seem hypocritical, I do not want to tear down any true Christian Denomination. I do, however, see that often different denominations worship in different ways, and I feel that although that is fine, there are some things that should be done in worship, and some things that should not be done in worship. I feel that some churches or denominations may have some things right and some things wrong, and for the sake of making a point, I will try to humbly point out good and bad things about different denominations and churches.
I think that first off, we should ask a few questions: “What is church worship?,” “What is the purpose of church worship?,” “What takes place at church worship?” These are three basic questions that I think could serve as a basis for learning about worshiping God.
One way people look at worship is as if it is their relationship with God being made public. This leads some into thinking that they can worship just however they feel is right, and there are no “rules and regulations” to worship. I think that this viewpoint can be both very helpful and very dangerous at the same time.
It would be bad for a Pastor, or any church leader to claim a specific code to worship God. There is not “code” for worshiping God, and it would be wrong to judge someone who may worship slightly different. A lot of worship is found in the heart, not the mind.
However, when hearing, “I want to worship my way” I am taken to Cain and Abel. I don’t remember everything about the story, but pretty much this is how my memory tells me (please correct me if I am wrong): Cain and Abel were told by God to make Him a sacrifice. God gave specific instructions on how to do it. Abel followed God. Cain did it his way. Cain was punished and Abel was rewarded. What this basically tells me is that some things God wants done a certain way, just for the sake of doing things His way. We may not understand why, but sometimes we should put our feelings aside to do whatever God says. Therefore, I feel that it can be dangerous to use the “worship my own way” method in worship.
This leads me into seeing two “competing” sides in church worship. I see the intellect and the emotion; the rational and the revival; the mind and the heart. However, I believe that both of these can be found to co-exist within each other in church worship. They are both important and should both exist. Jerry Hampton, in his essay “Rationalism and Revivalism” explains their co-existence by saying, “…The sum of all of this is this: Rationalistic systematizing results in emotionalistic preaching. The one ends where the other begins. Rationalism demands in every instance a conversion experience. Emotionalistic preaching brings about such an experience efficiently. The river of rationalism leads inevitably to the waterfall of emotionalism…”
Of course, this is written in such an intellectual way. In an individualist American nation, many people would hardly know what half of these words mean. From this, I see that emotionalism has it’s ends itself. A rationalistic conclusion can not be met by someone who only cares about emotions. If the “waterfall of emotionalism” is all that exist, then you free fall forever! There is not strong river to carry you upstream, and thus closer to God.
However, individualism can also be seen in an intellectual state of mind as well, and often is seen more in this state of mind then the emotionalistic state of mind. In fact, many individualists hold to the Utopian, intellectual, classic Northern-American literature, as opposed to the classic Romantic Southern-American literature. Individualism does have it’s good points in life, but in church worship, individualism should not be at the forefront at all.
This leads me to ask the original question, “What is church worship?” My best definition I can come up with in my own words would be this: “Church worship is the corporate covenant renewal service held by a group of the followers of God.” In church worship, we can not be individualist to ourselves whether through intellect or emotion. We need both, and one should not judge one church for not having one, when they don’t have the other.
To go both deeper and simpler into what church worship is, you could say that it is entering God’s house. We go to God’s house, not so much God coming to ours. This assertion could be held by most any Christian. This simply easily leads into our next two questions.
If we go into someone’s house, we are either going to give or to take away. If I call my neighbor down the street, I may ask to borrow some sugar, and then go down the street to get it. Or, my neighbor who is ill may call me, and ask that I bring her something she needs. When we go into God’s presence, we do both- give and take away. Sometimes, people may assert too much that the church goes into worship simply to give to God. However, we are ill and in need of His grace. We must come away from worship with our medicine. However at the same time, we have a responsibility as the church. When we come into church, although God does not need help, He uses us. Each week He gives us the strength to carry out His will next week, and come back to renew His covenant with us once again. In response to the grace He offers, we should out of instinct worship with emotion.
But we go into His House for more than just giving and taking. We visit. We don’t just go in, say hey, and give what we give, and take what He gives, and leave. We visit, and constantly give and constantly take through the worship. Therefore, there is Biblical guidelines to what we do and the order we do it in worship.
When I look at different churches, I see Pentecostal churches strengthened in their emotional worship to God. I see Presbyterian Churches, Roman Catholic Churches, and Episcopal Churches strengthened in the intellectual worship. We need both, but by themselves, each is insufficient. The intellect without the emotion is like a food unseasoned, and the emotion without the intellect is like the seasoning without the main food.
Perhaps this is why Pentecostal churches seem to have more church worshiping. God designated the Sabbath Day to be His day, in which we worship Him corporately. Wednesday night service is not Biblically invalid, but is not really directly mandatory, although we should be in constant communion with one another. If the emotion is all we have, we need more of it, and we need it more frequently.
In many “emotional” churches such as the various Pentecostal churches, I see God’s work at hand. Often, emotional experiences are true, and are often very helpful. God brings people to Him through emotional preaching and through emotional song, and Pentecostal churches do have a way with getting the personal side to the modern day human. I am not a Pentecostal, but I can’t say that God does not use Pentecostal churches. The emotion is part of a life with Christ.
However in some of these churches I see a trend as well, one not so good. Often, people tend to come and go easily. Later in his essay, Jerry Hampton says, “The revivalistic movements in the meantime, are enrgetic, constantly ‘winning souls for Christ.’ However, a realistic review reveals that much of this ‘soul winning’ is of the revolving door type. People have the experience, but once the newness of the emotional experience wears away, they wither and die. New people then move in to take their place. Sometimes, though, people come back and ‘re-dedicate’ their lives to Christ, only to fall away yet again.
“A good example of this was revealed by a sign I once saw on a local mega-church steeped in revivalist tendencies. The sign read “New Members for April – 76.” Now, if this was anywhere near typical, and if the majority of these people stayed the course, then in short time, that church would be overflowing and possibly starting new congregations. However, that particular church has stayed within its current walls for several decades now. It has a huge sanctuary that is not filled on a regular basis. The revolving door is spinning out of control.”
Hampton is right on his claims. The emotion wears off, and people go to different churches. It is like the parable Jesus said about planting seeds that sprout up, only to soon die away. However, according to Hampton, these churches have one trick up their sleeve. Hampton says, “However, revivalists have one trick up their sleeve to keep the game going. They simply keep intensifying the emotionalism. Once a person has an emotion based conversion experience, he needs to keep feeding the beast. More and more emotionalism will keep some coming back again and again. You just keep raising the stakes. The end result if that path is chosen can be seen in the world of Pentecostalism.”
So with this in mind, I think that a good form of worship can be done in the same form some tell us to pray, the ACTS formula. ‘A’ is for adoration; ‘C’ is for confession, ‘T’ is for thanksgiving, and ‘S’ is for supplication. When we enter into God’s presence, our first reaction should be to give praise to God, for who He is. Imagine a body of believers walking into the presence of God seeing His throne. We come with a call to worship. We stand at the gates of God, joyful and exceedingly glad, full of emotion. However, before we actually enter His presence, we must be cleansed. According to Rich Lusk, Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, and author of “Paedo Faith” and co-author of “The Federal Vision,” we must confess our sins to God before entering His House as we would “wipe our feet at the welcome mat when we enter someone’s house.” After we confess our sins, we are reminded of God’s grace, once again leading us into thanksgiving to God. This time, it is not for just who God is, but what He has done- saved us!
When we enter His presence, we learn from His word (Sermon), and give our gifts to God (tithes and offerings), we lift our petitions up to God (supplication and prayer), and we commune with God in meal (Lord’s Supper). Often, when we visit someone, we eat with them. We do with Jesus Christ, He has given us the Lords’ Supper. I also find it interesting that often throughout the Bible, the gathering of saints, the lifting of voices, the learning of God’s word, prayer, and the breaking of bread are all together. Acts 2:40-44 reads, “And with many other words he testified and exhorted them , saying, ‘Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. Now all who believed were together and had all thinks in common,…” In this, we see both emotionalistic preaching, and yet a general approach to worship with the gathering of saints in common prayer, learning from God’s word, and the breaking of bread.
Of course, in leaving God’s presence, we are called, this time not into worship, but into the world. We are called to fulfill the great commission, which is what Peter was doing there in Acts. This calling, is a benediction, you could say. Once at Clayridge Baptist Church I noticed a sign posted facing those who would be leaving church, that said “You now into the great commission.” We “go” throughout the week, and on the Lord’s Day, we renew our covenant with God, giving Him praise, glory, honor, thanks, and receiving His grace.
I think that the emotion should be present in worship. I also feel like we should worship with all that we are- are minds, hearts, and even our physical bodies, which I think Pentecostals are right on. The lifting of hands, the clapping of hands, and the lifting of voices are mentioned over and over in the Bible. Even dancing is mentioned often. The way we do things, even with our physical bodies is important. Often, intellectual Calvinist preachers tend to take focus off of the heart and body, and put it on the mind. Often, some will put emphasis on physical bodily motions such as the lifting of hands, kneeling, etc., but put this only based off of intellectual rituals. I do not feel as if intellectualism is a bad thing, or as if basing body motions off of certain intellectual ritual ways in bad, but if this is based only off of intellectual rituals, and not off of common emotion to God, then it is pointless. Jerry Hampton in his essay talking about this form of Calvinism said, “The Calvinist might argue that since all is in God’s hands, the emotionalistic ferver of the preaching is not so important. Simply a pure preaching of the Word of God will bring about true conversions. But, this is simply the last gasp of the rationalistic tendency before the revivalist waterfall. Held consistently, a single point in time conversion experience (which is required for a rationalistic single puzzle piece justification) will result in more and more pressure to reach the emotions of men. Perhaps the best among Calvinist preachers will hold out and continue to attempt to reach the intellect with the word of God. However, while they are doing so, their churches stifle. The revivalistic movements in the meantime, are enrgetic, constantly ‘winning souls for Christ.’……..If their particular congregation believes consistently the rationalistic, systematic, justification as a single point in time phenomena, yet they do not preach that way, then they are simply being inconsistent with their presuppositions……. I witnessed the latter first hand once while attending a particularly rationalistic Reformed congregation. The Lord’s Supper was ‘celebrated’ at the conclusion of the worship service. However, it was a very somber, reflective experience. The major theme seemed not to be the congregation’s communion with the Lord and with each other, but instead to be several minutes of ‘naval gazing.” The power of the sacrament, apparently, was not to be found in God’s sovereign power working through the elements and activity of the celebration, but through each individual’s sovereign power and ability to look within himself and find…something. What he was to find, I am unsure. But it almost seemed taboo to look anywhere outside oneself, or, heaven forbid, to actually have on a happy face. Again, they may retort that what I am saying is a caricature of what was really going on. I respond by saying that appearance is a reflection of reality. Whether they realized it or not, this is what was happening…….Many reformed theologians would deny that this is their belief. However, it is their practice, and if they are to be consistent to their experiential presuppositions, they have to admit that this belief is consistent with that. This, I believe, is what Reverend Lusk was driving at. This is a major cause in the decline of infant baptism. When the reformed-minded pastor follows rationalism to its end, they either become revivalists, or the revivalists in our midst pick up where they leave off. Either way, the efficacy of the Sacraments is denied.”
Okay, I don’t know if you were able to bear with me that long, but if you have made it here, then thank you for you time in reading this. I don’t know how well my points came across or not, but I at least tried. Worship is an important topic to be studied, because it is for God, and anything for God is important. Also, please remember, that this was not at all meant to be negative to any denominations or beliefs, but showed the good and bad in each, and showed my opinion on how true Christian worship should be structured. For more blogs related, you may could look at the list below:

Rationalism and Revivalism by Jerry Hampton, http://thehampster.blogspot.com/2007/02/rationalism-and-revivalism.html

The Church and Politics by Jerry Hampton, http://thehampster.blogspot.com/2007/02/church-and-politics.html

Justification by Faith by Peter Leithart, http://www.leithart.com/archives/003081.php

Preaching in Liturgy by Duane Garner, http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/duane_garner/preaching_in_the_liturgy.htm

No Thank You

(this blog is similar and inspired from John Stossel's blog, The Double 'Thank-You' Movement."It is, however, written from the words of author, Ryan Hampton).

Have you ever bought something from somebody, said "Thank you," and then heard they seller say "No, thank you" to you? For one, it is common courtesy, especially for the person selling the item(s) bought, but it also shows happiness on the part of both of you, that you are now happier. You want the item more than the money. The owner wants the money more than the item. The worker wants the job so that they get a portion of the money in return.
But what if some outside force kept you from making the deal? You would not be so happy. What if they made a control on the item, that it may not sell for any more than a certain amount, or for any less than a certain amount? What if they told you that you could only buy a certain amount at one time, or told the seller that they could only make so much profit? Or what if they took money that you had earned and spent it on you the way they wanted to, without your consent?
Needless to say you’d be ticked. For economist, it is needless to say what force I am referring to. The Government. Yes, the Government, even the government of ‘capitalist’ America.
You may not realize that the government does all of this, but they do things very similar. You don’t realize it. Children think it is bad when their parents (with legal and moral authority on the children) give them advice, or tell them which paths to take. However, people are relying on the government too much. Children don’t take everything their parents tell them as true. But it is probably a lot more true than what the government teaches us. Children don’t think that their parents advice for saving money is good. However it is better than the government force in our pocketbooks.
How does the government influence our personal economics? A few examples are minimum wage, public education, and price caps. Minimum wage takes away from a free market because the government uses force on the economy, making it not free, but forced. Although it seems as if minimum wage helps the little guy, a closer look shows it hurts the little guy (I do not have time for all the reasons why on this blog, but you can look at other blogs I will have listed below).
Public education is another way the government influences our economy, as well as our personal lives. The idea that America has a free educational system is farther from the truth than what the earth is from the sun. The government takes your money through taxes, and then uses a portion of that (a very large amount) on education. In fact, this amount is larger per child than what the average private school costs. The government takes your money and spends it on something that they see fit for you. Sure, education is important, but do you want it to come from the government? (Again, I don’t have the time to post all on this topic on this blog, but look at the other blogs listed below).
Price caps are dangerous as well. It keeps people from taking risks on business, knowing that there is a forced limit to their pricing. The less risks people take on business, the less business we have, and thus the less competition to keep prices low in the first place. Also, these business will probably not have all the effects that the business make who do take large risks for business. Price caps drive away profit, business, and products. If the product is not worth it, then don’t buy it!
These are just a few ways the government influences the economy, and to these reasons and most all of the others, I say "No thank you." I will show thanks for the free market when making a purchase or selling an item, but will not ask for the government’s help (or lack thereof). John Stossel said, "I get scared when I hear politicians say things like(see link at bottom) ‘I am for free trade but also fair trade.’" The truth is, free trade is most always more fair than government forced trade, or lack of trade. We don’t really need the government for as many reasons as we may think, and in reality, the government probably need the people more than the people needs the government. We don’t need the government telling us how much something is worth, or how much is too much. We do that on our own. If we make mistakes that is our own fault. We should not have the government taking money from the economically wise to promote the general good of the economically illiterate and stupid. That just encourages us to be glutton pigs instead of hard working humans. That is basic communism, not a basic free market society. So to the government, no thank you, and to the person at Wal-Mart who sold me the Fathers Day card and birthday card for my cousin, "Thank you; ‘No, thank you!’"

See blogs, "The Double 'Thank-You' Movement" by John Stossel, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/the_double_thankyou_moment.html

"Competition Works. Let It Help The Schools." by John Stossel, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/competition_works_let_it_help.html

"The Ignorence of a Minimum Wage Argument" by Ryan Hampton, http://ryanhampton.blogspot.com/2007/01/ignorence-of-minimum-wage-argument.html

"My Thoughts on School Vouchers" by Ryan Hampton, http://ryanhampton.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-thoughts-on-school-vouchers.html

"Problems With Education" by Ryan Hampton, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=153516180

"Taxes and Government" by Ryan Hampton, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=135528600

"The Hypocrice of Minimum Wage" by Josh Rutledge, http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/07/hypocrisy-of-minimum-wage.html

See Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee's page to see him talk about 'Free but fair' trade ==> http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=5

Disagreements Within the Church

The Christian church today is separated by so many denominations, and it is important that the church seeks to grow in unity, apart from this separation. Thus, on the personal levels, local levels, and also the worldwide level, Christians should learn to strive to come closer together. Of course, theoretically, one way of doing this is for all Christians to agree on every single issue. Obviously, however, that will not happen any time soon, if ever. Therefore, we should strive to unite even with our theological differences. The question is, though, how.
Are non-denominational churches the answer? Should Christians simply just go to non-denominational churches and keep unity in that way. The answer is probably not so black and white. We should strive for unity, and sometimes non-denominational churches have good answers. They will often focus on your relationship with God, and how that flows into corporate fellowship with others.
But at the same time, these churches often tend to focus more on the personal side to things, as opposed to the corporate side of things. This is not really all that good. Corporate worship is not just about a "nice emotion" but rather Christians coming together in a covenant renewal service with God. Private prayer and family prayer is important, but church worship requires church prayer, and that, perhaps, can be the most precious, and effective form of prayer- when all God’s people are praying a common prayer to God on High.
Denominational churches may can help bring unity through the fact that most the people have common agreement on different theological issues, such as church worship. In this day of time, even though denominations seem to divide the church, having denominations may be the best long term answer, because it gives churches opportunity to make their conclusions, and the churches with best conclusions, and as churches grow with better conclusions, we may, in the long run, come to common agreement on the issues. However this is only done through certain measures.
The first, as strange as this may seem to you, is to find the line between church acceptance and church rejection. This sounds like it defeats the purpose of unity. If done wrongly, it probably does. If done rightly, it shows where common ground lies, and gives us a good starting point for the next step (see as you read below). Homosexuality, extreme liberal Christianity, and evolutionary ideas are all issues that should be addressed at some level, as to what is accepted and what is rejected. I personally do not feel as if homosexuality, for example, is favored, or even really tolerated by God. I believe it is a very bad sin. However, for the church to say that every homosexual is absolutely not a Christian, the church is making a strong statement, and the issues, even to a ‘conservative’ Christian as myself would no longer be so black and white. If a homosexual claimed that Jesus has saved him, do you use the ‘hate the sin love the sinner’ approach and try to help him with his sin? Do you accept him for what he is, and not delve into his personal life? Or do you totally reject him from the church altogether? If you do the latter, is this done by the local church or the church as a whole? I do not claim to have all the answers, but sometimes raising the right questions, not having all the right answers, is the best help. I hope that the church can find a way to find unity on answering these questions.
The second action we should take, at a personal level, and a local church level, and ultimately through the whole church, is kind of the coming out of the first action. It is to find common ground. Both of these really go together. What is something every Christian agrees on? That question is a good starting point, at least, to this issue. Christians believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Christian believes that these are three persons of one God. A Christian believes that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, and died on the cross to save us, mankind, who are all fallen sinners, who are, in and of ourselves, short of the glory of God. A Christian also believes that God in this day, reveals Himself to the world through His word, the Holy Bible. These are what I call the "Christian absolutes." They are absolutely true to all Christians.
Therefore as Christians, we should strive to remain catholic to these believes. I do not mean ‘catholic’ as in Roman Catholic, but as in universal. We should keep our unity, above all else and if nothing else, on these facts, as one Holy catholic and apostolic church. We are one, universal, and God-serving. From these common grounds, we can usually find some other common ground somewhere. Even two Christians who have many disagreements, probably have a lot that they agree on as well.
Another measure, and what I would consider next, is that different churches, both of the same and of different denominations, should have fellowship with each other. There is nothing greater than God’s people being together, whether for corporate worship in a sanctuary, or worshiping God through fellowship i.e. mercy ministries, feasting, or just being together as Christian friends. Going to different churches will not only allow Christians to have good time, not only give glory to God through Christian community, but also help ease burden of differences between churches, by not only finding common ground, but acting upon it in events of fellowship.
The fourth action I feel the church should take is to fund the church worldwide. Christians (at least in the general traditional order), should give 10% of their income to the work of the church, particularly their local church. However, most of the money, and not out of bad intentions and I don’t feel out of bad results, simply go to funding the Pastor, and funding the bills to pay on the church building and property. However, a portion of that money should go to funding local mercy ministries, as well as worldwide organizations and missionaries. Giving privately beyond the basic 10% to organizations and missionaries is also good. God Himself does not need money because He is all powerful. However, God does use human measures to support the work of His kingdom, such as money. It is our job to do our job, and God will take care of the rest. What better way to spend our money than on the strengthening and prospering of God’s kingdom?!
The next action to take, is to take part in friendly debate. I am not against debate if it is in good meaning and good action. The debate should be kept in the mindset of the above actions such as finding common ground. Good, fair, open, and above all, God-centered debate can be very good. Each side may wind up learning something from the other side.
Above all, the last but certainly not least action for the church to take, at a personal, local, especially universal level, is to worship. The gathering of multiple saints of God is such a glorious and Holy experience, probably far more so than a personal time which is very important in itself. We should find our common ground, and then worship. Glory to God, Holy Holy Holy, and Christ is risen, should be our theme. We should worship in spirit and in truth; in our service to God, and in expecting Him to make us whole, complete, forgiven, and joyful. The worship of the church, perhaps, is the best way to cure disagreements and any hard feelings within the universal, holy catholic and apostolic Christian church. Although I said toward the beginning of this post, that it may be best in this day to have different denominations in our differences, this should only happen under the ultimate goal that one day we will be united, not by an over ruling dictator to the whole church, infringing on personal life, but in unity in worship, doctrine, and fellowship.
Of course, worship like prayer is to be done in the right way. There are no absolute rules to worship or prayer, other than to worship. But what is corporate worship, and how do we obtain a full experience, with both emotional revivalism, and rationalistic doctrine? For a good blog on this, you may can look at the blog Rationalism and Revivalism by Jerry Hampton. Just click on the following link below: http://thehampster.blogspot.com/2007/02/rationalism-and-revivalism.html

Another good link to go to is the blog, Debating Doctrine by Cliff Prosser. Just go to the link below:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130099894&blogID=203363138&MyToken=1c058778-8d90-425c-82ba-5279afc49de8
I will also try to write on the issue soon, possibly very soon, and possibly still a while, depending on my time and so forth. Thank you, and God bless the work of the church.

Who I'm Voting For

Currently, to the right, you should see several candidates for President. In my last blog, I wrote that soon this blog, "From the Mind of Ryan Hampton" will be issuing their official support for a candidate. The list to the right, in no particular order, is a list of potential candidates to win my official support. You may realize, that they are all Republicans, and that none of them are really considered the "front runners" in the election. For a while I had the picture of Ron Paul as the only candidate up there, because he was in the "lead" to win for the support. But I have not yet come out with official support, so I would rather leave the choices open, and when I decide to place my support for a candidate, I will make it known, and perhaps leave his picture as the only one left. You may leave comments to see who you think would make the best President, your reasons why, so that I may carefully consider the readers opinions. Thanks again,

Ryan

The Race for 2008

It seems like just two days ago we were wondering if Bush stole the election from Al Gore, and it seems just one day ago we were wondering if John Kerry could defeat George Bush, and now, we are in to a crowded and heated race for the 2008 elections for President of the United States of America. Two years from now, our President will not be George Bush, and less than a year and a half from now, we will know who our new President will be. Time marches on the world of politics.
Two years ago, Hillary Clinton was the sure favorite, at least for the Democratic Party. It was a strategic move on her part to wait until 2008 so that she could have an "easier" run. However now, she has her work cut out for her. It will be hard enough just getting through the primaries. Tough Hillary will have to face a slick Barack Obama, and a slick John Edwards, as well as all of the other Democratic Presidential hopefuls, just in the primaries.
She will then have to get past the Republican nominee, whoever that is. Obviously, the front-runners on the Republican ticket are John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney. But whereas just two years ago McCain and Giuliani were thought to be the only two with a chance, unless Condalisa Rice decided to run, it now appears that the Republican race is tighter than what many thought it would be, just as the Democratic race is. Any of the three big Republicans could pull away and carry momentum into the primaries, and easily win, but they could also all cancel each other out, giving rise to a Fred Thompson, Tommy Thompson, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, and any others. We really don’t know, and it is still fair game, even to some of the "lesser" candidates, on both the Republican and Democratic sides.
Still, I think Hillary is one of the favorites, possibly the favorite, to win. She has a name. She has been First Lady, as well as Senator of one of the most populated states in America, New York. She has a way to both be a good and slick debater, but still come across as tough woman. As for me, personally, I don’t want her to win, and fortunately she does have her work cut out for her. However, I do think that she has a good chance. There are not many Republicans, in my opinion, who can beat her in the general election.
Barack Obama is slick, but still young. I know people think that because he stands such a good chance at winning, he will stick around until the end. However, I think that there is a chance, maybe not big, but a reasonable chance, that Obama could drop himself out, possibly even before the primaries. If he did this, he would be considered by some people to have more class, and it would not be considered as much of a defeat as it would if he would if he lost sticking it out. It may set him up for four years or eight years later where although he is still young, he will be experienced, and will have a good name. Then, he may be hard to beat. Of course, a smaller candidate could really come on and become another "Obama" four or eight years from now, making Obama like Clinton- what was thought to be a sure win may become a hard struggle.
Of course, if Clinton and Obama get into heated debates, then Clinton may make Obama look unprepared for the office, and Obama may make Clinton look like a bully. This could open the door for a heard-of, popular, and slick John Edwards. John Edwards is perhaps the next in line behind Obama and Clinton on the Democratic side. If he does not mess himself up, and if he stays in the race, then he has a very good chance of making a run and bringing momentum into the primaries, and possibly winning the primaries. However, if they all three cancel each other out, it could make room for someone like Joe Biden, Wes Clark, Bill Richardson, and any others to make a surprise run.
The Republican side is similar. You have a tough Rudy Giuliani who could probably beat about anybody on the Democratic side. You also have John McCain. McCain is interesting, in that he is not really tough or slick, but he is experienced and has a name. Neither McCain nor Giuliani have been loved by typical conservative Christians, but yet they seem to still be the leader in the polls. Most conservatives know that Giuliani is pro-choice. If conservatives had a choice between McCain and Giuliani on such ethical issues as abortion and homosexual marriage, they would choose McCain, but Giuliani seems to be considered a better leader than McCain, and is given a better chance to beat Hillary Clinton. One reason is because he is from New York, another reason is because of his moderate-at-best views, but yet another reason, is that he probably just has more debt and money to win the general election than the other Republican candidates, even including McCain.
However, if McCain and Giuliani knocked each other out in the same hypothetical way presented between Clinton and Obama, Mitt Romney would be at hand to come in and win the primaries, similary to how Edwards could, and how Kerry did it in 2004, when all of the leading candidates seemed to knock each other out. But Romney has enough popularity that he could get knocked out as well. Many Christians, who make up a large but not full portion of the Republican voters, would not vote for Romney on account of him being Morman, not Christian. Giuliani is Roman Catholic, and McCain is Episcopalian.
If all three of these knock each other out, who could that leave? I think that Sam Brownback would probably be next in line, followed by Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Tommy Thompson, or Fred Thompson if he indeed runs. Brownback and Huckabee, in my opinion, is a lot of what would be considered modern-day traditional conservatives. I know it sounds oxymoron, but what I mean is that when you hear the word "conservative" outside of the main stream media and the Democrats, you think of people like Brownback and Huckabee. When the media and the Democratic Party become in the mix, conservatism is thought along the lines of a McCain or Mitt Romney. Both Huckabee and Brownback seem to lean to traditional values, and a government kept in check in power. In fact, Huckabee was a Baptist Minister. In saying this, however, Huckabee does seem to look to government a little more than many of the "modern-day traditional conservatives" would, just not as much as a raving liberal.
An interesting candidate is Ron Paul. He is like the Joe Liberman or Zel Miller of the Republican Party. Many of his views are not what would be considered conservative, but yet he claims to be the "true Republican" running. He would be more of a traditional conservative if you went back a generation or two. Where Liberman is a Democrat for the war, Ron Paul is a Republican strongly against the war. Ron Paul is not for a Federal law against abortion or homosexual marriage, and he is not for a Federal drug war. These things would turn many conservatives off.
Yet there are still some things that would make Ron Paul attractive to the conservatives, if the conservatives would just open-mindedly hear him out. Ron Paul is a proclaimed Christian, and although he is not for a Federal law against abortion or homosexual marriage, he is for states rights on those issues, giving conservatives improvement from the Roe Vs. Wade court decision. He even identifies himself as pro-life. Ron Paul is for tougher immigration laws. Ron Paul has been one of the more consistent politicians running for President in terms of voting and not flip-flopping. He is a strict constructionist in viewing the Constitution, and is for low taxes.
But being anti-war, not for a Federal law banning abortion, and having other libertarian ideas held by Paul, could hold him from gaining conservative votes. He has gained attention lately, which is good, except the attention is not for good things. It is about his remarks to America having the 9/11 attacks coming, with, according to Paul, "fifty years of bad foreign affairs policies." Paul may have some good points, but he is probably taking it too far. What Paul should say in response to this, is that he does not blame America first for this, but the terrorist who issued the attacks. Blaming bad foreign policy comes second. Paul probably meant well, but it may not all go well for him. If Paul comes through with an emotional speech about catching the terrorists, and making America safer in the future, then he may have both attention and popularity he needs to make a run in the primaries.
So conservatives and Republicans are in a bind as much or more than the Democrats. They must strategize as to who can beat someone like Clinton or Obama, as well as voting their feelings. As a first time voter, and wanting to make the right choice, I find myself battling as to how I should strategize in voting; to vote someone who could win, give the little guy a chance, or if I should throw both strategies out the window, and just vote who I think would be the best President of the United States of America, regardless of what kinds of chances they have at winning. Figuring out who would make the best President, though, is hard just in itself.
My blog, From the Mind of Ryan Hampton, will soon be issuing their official support for a candidate down the campaign trail. After the primaries, if the supported candidate is eliminated, we will issue our support for a new candidate for the general election. The race is heating up, but there is still much to happen, both for Democrats, Republicans, and any third party candidate or write in. One of these third party candidates or wtie-in candidates could help decide an election. Even if they don’t win, they could be the ones holding the votes that could swing a state, and that state could be the state to swing the election.
If people took the general "strategies" out the window, and simply voted for who they think would make the best President, then the "little guys" would probably win plenty of votes. The more votes they have, the more popularity they bring, and thus, the more money and media attention they would bring, until one day, perhaps, even a third party candidate could win a state, or maybe even the whole general election. But I think that both Democrats and Republicans would strategize and join forces to stop a third party candidate such as one from the Libertarian Party or the Constitutionalist Party. However, perhaps as many politicians themselves would say, it is the people voting that make the difference. This could, depending on our votes, be the election that a third party candidate makes a run, or a lesser heard of Democrat or Republican wins the race, and becomes the next President of the United States of America.