With college football just now beginning, I think I would like to give a big WAR EAGLE!!! to all those reading! I think Auburn should be fairly decent this year. Who knows, maybe this can be a championship year! All my waiting for Auburn to kick off is now coming down to just tommorow. Anyway, this is short, but I thought I'd give a big War Eagle to all those out there. Hey Bama, fear the other thumb!! Let's get six straight! War Eagle!
Ryan
Friday, August 31, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Ryan Hampton Supports...
We are about five months away to the primaries of the Presidential elections, and many people have already decided who they will vote for. I will be a first-time voter myself, and I have been trying to make the right decision as to who I will vote for. No, I have not tirelessly read and researched every single candidate of every single party in full detail, but I have put at least some thought into who will receive my first official vote I cast for being President of The United States of America.
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
The Elections of 2008
The Elections of 2008
The elections of 2008 are quickly approaching us, and it is time we consider the candidates running and who we may vote for. I myself will be a first-time voter, and I will just make the primaries by about five days (I turn 18 about five days before the primaries). I am trying to pay close attention the candidates, to know who seems most trustworthy, and who seems to be the best leader for this nation. Soon, I will be issuing my official support for one of the candidates.
It seems weird that a year and a half from now, our President will not be a Bush. However it might be a Clinton. Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the leaders in the race for President, but does she have what it takes to pull of the election? Or will she even be able to make it out of the primaries?
The election, with still several more months until even the primaries begin, has already been one filled with action, and change from original speculations. Barack Obama was not considered a serious candidate until about the beginning of the campaign trail. He soon jumped up into a dead-heat race with none other than Hillary Clinton. Two and a half years ago, it was John McCain who thought to have a pretty comfortable victory for the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani was given a shot, but only behind Senator McCain. Now, Giuliani is the "sure favorite" to win, and John McCain has fallen behind dramatically.
But this puts Giuliani in a "no win" situation. Sure, he is the favorite to win. But that puts him in more media spotlight, and has more room for sensibility to his opinions. The best that can happen is that he gains more votes and wins anyway. For a lesser candidate, the worst is that he loses votes, and loses anyway. Giuliani is in the position that McCain was in, Hillary Clinton is in, and the position Howard Dean was in about four years ago- before he blew it.
McCain, when in second behind Giuliani, was also in a no-win situation. He was in worse of a situation that Giuliani is in now. At least now, Giuliani can hold on to his lead and win. McCain was being cancelled out by Giuliani. Giuliani’s tough character, and McCain’s small chances of beating Clinton, would make it nearly impossible for McCain to beat Giuliani. He might could cancel out Giuliani, but that would cancel him out too, giving rise to another person- likely Mitt Romney.
Now McCain has gone down hill severely. He is not even in the position to beat cancel out Giuliani. Now, that role has been placed on Romney- the slick, tough, Mormon carrying much momentum. Does this put Mitt Romney in the same ‘‘no win’’ position as McCain was in? I think that Mitt Romney can handle this better than McCain. He might could pull out and beat Guiliani. However if these two get put in heated debates, don’t be surprised to see the election fall into an all-out up for grabs amongst nearly all of the candidates. You could see someone like Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee come make a surprise run into the primaries, similar to how John Kerry did in 2004.
The Democratic race is very similar. Hillary Clinton is in the same position as Giuliani is in. She has held her ground for much longer, but is now under great pressure from Obama. Is she going to be able to hold on to the lead, or will she give it up to Obama? Or, could they both cancel each other out giving rise to a John Edwards?
Barack Obama, though maybe a little better, is in a similar situation to what John McCain was in. Barack Obama’s bright young face, and slick rhetoric is what is keeping him in longer than John McCain. However Clinton has one thing that Obama does not have. As journalist Josh Rutledge points out, "She [Hillary Clinton] can get away with acting like a jerk and trying to smear him [Barack Obama]. Obama can’t." Hillary Clinton might could use this to her advantage. This could probably take away Barack Obama’s changes. However it is a chance for Clinton as well. She could mess up and cancel both her and Obama out, or, Obama could come back with a counter attack and cancel out Clinton. It may already be a lost cause for Obama, but this could put John Edwards in as sure of a position as ever to win the Democratic primaries. He is slick, and has "been there done that" unlike both Obama and Clinton. For Obama to stand a chance, he must continue to be slick, and careful. Furthermore, he probably needs a mistake or two from Hillary Clinton. Both are very possible, but for them both to happen is unlikely.
It is possible that both of these candidates, Clinton and Obama, could beat their way down to the level of John Edwards, or, that Edwards could meet somewhere in the middle with Clinton and Obama. This could turn into a dead-heated race between the three of them. If they then all cancelled each other out, though, the Democratic primaries could turn into a dead-heat between all of the candidates. Candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, who once thought to have no chance, may have a chance after all.
Any of the candidates, really, still hold a shot at winning- just in their own way. Each candidate brings something that the other candidates are lacking, and thus, will receive some votes. A year ago, many people, including myself to a degree, thought that this could be the year that a third party candidate makes a run- maybe not winning, but perhaps deciding the election, or gains a considerable number of votes in consideration of being a third party candidate. That is still possible, but it is probably next to irrelevant in the primaries. It is probably a little more noticeable from the Republican side, where the candidates are a little more spread out. The moderate Republicans will probably take Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney; the conservative, fundamental Republicans will probably take Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Fred Thompson; the more Libertarian Republicans will probably take Ron Paul. Once again, McCain, who was once the leader, is more or less left out.
Ron Paul himself is an interesting candidate. If you look on the internet, you might think that he is the leading candidate. However if you watch the news, you may hear Guiliani’s name one hundred times before you hear "Ron Paul." Ron Paul calls himself the "True Republican." But yet many Republican’s disown him. He is against the war, he is not for a Federal drug war, and he is not for the Federal banning of abortion. He wants to return the gold standard, which is something too radical and "out there" for both Democrats and Republicans. He is not for a national ID card, and he is not for regulating the internet. Looking at these things, it is easy to see why modern-day Republicans, conservative and moderate, disown him.
But he does offer many conservative ideologies that other Republican candidates are not willing to offer- many things that would be a conservative’s dream. He is a proclaimed Christian. Sure, any candidate could say that, but this goes for all candidates. If you question Paul (who by the way, as we’ll see is the most consistent voter), then you must question every other proclaimed Christian running for President (and every one in the world as well). He is for tougher border security, which is something many Republicans do not like about Bush at the moment. He is for low taxes, and has never voted to raise taxes. He has been called the "tax-payers best friend." He says he will protect your rights to bear arms. He is perhaps the most consistent candidates in voting, as far as not "flip-flopping." He is pro-life. (He is not so much for a Federal ban on abortion, but he would support the ban at the state level). As far as returning to the gold standard, he simply wants to be able to back up any money in circulation with gold- something with true value in itself. This would reduce inflation, help get America out of debt, and probably lower the prices on many goods. None of these things are bad. When gold does not back up money, the government spends money like a credit card. The next generation must pay that credit card bill. He is a strict constructionist in viewing the Constitution, and pledges to uphold it. He would probably be the most Libertarian of conservatives, but also probably the most conservative of the Libertarians. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan said that "The very heart and soul of conservatism is Libertarianism."
Paul probably should campaign on the conservative issues more if wants any chance at winning. He probably needs a lot of help by other candidate’s mistakes, but plenty can happen in five or six months. If nothing else, he might affect the way other candidates run and campaign, and might bring a little different twist to the Republican Party. I also think out of the lesser candidates, Ron Paul is probably the most underrated. He has raised more money than a lot of candidates, but has not spent all that much of it. The internet is also serving as a big help to Paul.
As of to date, Fred Thompson has not made his campaign official, but most people believe it is definite that he will run. Many people consider him real conservative. However after comparing voting records, Ron Paul seems more fiscally conservative than Fred Thompson is. Still out of those who have a good chance to win the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson is probably the most conservative.
There are still many more of the "lesser" candidates from both sides- Tom Tacnredo, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, etc. Tom Tancredo is conservative from the standpoint of tougher immigration laws. He also shows support for school choice. But his main issue is tougher immigration, and as a result, many people view him as a "one-sided candidate." Mike Huckabee, being a former Baptist Minister, might gain some Christian votes. But he has not made as much of a name for himself as someone like Fred Thompson. The Democratic race is pretty uniform compared to the Republican side, but every of the lesser candidates should be ready to take the leading position if Clinton, Obama, and Edwards cancelled each other out.
In the bottom line, both the Republican and Democratic races are open. Sure, the chances of the general election being between Ron Paul and Bill Richardson is slimmer than a sheet of paper. However every candidate on both sides brings something that others are missing. Overall, I continue to give the edge of Giuliani over McCain (I have said this for a while, and it seems to be coming true). I still give the edge to Clinton over Obama, although Obama will probably make more of a run than McCain could on Giuliani. I’m not so sure if Obama’s bright face and slick rhetoric can carry him past Clinton. It would take a Clinton mistake. Obama’s mistake may have been running this year in the first place. Four or eight years from now, he could be nearly unbeatable. For some, such as McCain, and Ron Paul, this may be their last chance, given their old ages. Also, another question to be asked that has not been asked in this article, is "Who are potential running mates?" Probably most of the people running for President would be, as well as others such as Jeb Bush of Florida, former Vice President Al Gore, or possibly even Bob Riley of Alabama. It’s also never too early to ask, "Who could be running in 2012?" Could we see Condoleezza Rice run? Jeff Sessions? Al Gore? Dick Durbin? Or even Roy Moore? Only time will tell, and for now, it is probably best to focus on this election.
As for my prediction, I predict that Rudy Giuliani will carry home the Republican nomination. I do not see McCain catching back up. I do not see Mitt Romney able to pull it off either- being Mormon may get him the mid-west, but Giuliani will probably take a lot of the Southeast, as well as most of the Northeast. I also do not see any other lesser candidate such as Paul, Huckabee, or Tancredo making a strong enough move in to win. As for the Democrats, I must pick also the front runner, Hillary Clinton. I do not see Barack Obama beating Clinton, nor do I see Edwards able to hang on long enough to beat Clinton. Furthermore, I am not sure if another candidate could come in and make a surprise move on her either. I can see Giuliani picking Fred Thompson as his running mate, and I can see Clinton either picking Obama or Al Gore for hers. Don’t take my word as definite, though, because in the world of politics, anything can happen.
Here are some interesting articles on the election (these may be outdated, and may seem somewhat irrelevant at certain points):
An Obama Mistake by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-mistake.html
Santa Obama by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/12/santa-obama.html
The Race for 2008 by Ryan Hampton- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=272410164
UPCOMING BLOGS: In my next blog, we will take a different and unique look at evolution. How could Charles Darwin’s theories be applied to Christian theology, and make the Christian faith stronger? My next blog will take an interesting look at that. I also plan to post a blog showing my official support for a candidate. I already have a good idea who it is- I just need a little more time to make sure I want to make this support official. Harry Potter- is this a book of wickedness, satanic worship, and magic? Is this a good book that can give us a new way of approaching the Bible? Or is it somewhere in between? I plan to post a blog on this popular book and movie series sometime soon. Also, with college football quickly approaching, I would like to post a blog on my thoughts of this upcoming college football season. I don’t have long to do that either! Check in, if you’d like, to these upcoming posts!
Thanks! In Christ,
Ryan
The elections of 2008 are quickly approaching us, and it is time we consider the candidates running and who we may vote for. I myself will be a first-time voter, and I will just make the primaries by about five days (I turn 18 about five days before the primaries). I am trying to pay close attention the candidates, to know who seems most trustworthy, and who seems to be the best leader for this nation. Soon, I will be issuing my official support for one of the candidates.
It seems weird that a year and a half from now, our President will not be a Bush. However it might be a Clinton. Hillary Clinton is certainly one of the leaders in the race for President, but does she have what it takes to pull of the election? Or will she even be able to make it out of the primaries?
The election, with still several more months until even the primaries begin, has already been one filled with action, and change from original speculations. Barack Obama was not considered a serious candidate until about the beginning of the campaign trail. He soon jumped up into a dead-heat race with none other than Hillary Clinton. Two and a half years ago, it was John McCain who thought to have a pretty comfortable victory for the Republican Party. Rudy Giuliani was given a shot, but only behind Senator McCain. Now, Giuliani is the "sure favorite" to win, and John McCain has fallen behind dramatically.
But this puts Giuliani in a "no win" situation. Sure, he is the favorite to win. But that puts him in more media spotlight, and has more room for sensibility to his opinions. The best that can happen is that he gains more votes and wins anyway. For a lesser candidate, the worst is that he loses votes, and loses anyway. Giuliani is in the position that McCain was in, Hillary Clinton is in, and the position Howard Dean was in about four years ago- before he blew it.
McCain, when in second behind Giuliani, was also in a no-win situation. He was in worse of a situation that Giuliani is in now. At least now, Giuliani can hold on to his lead and win. McCain was being cancelled out by Giuliani. Giuliani’s tough character, and McCain’s small chances of beating Clinton, would make it nearly impossible for McCain to beat Giuliani. He might could cancel out Giuliani, but that would cancel him out too, giving rise to another person- likely Mitt Romney.
Now McCain has gone down hill severely. He is not even in the position to beat cancel out Giuliani. Now, that role has been placed on Romney- the slick, tough, Mormon carrying much momentum. Does this put Mitt Romney in the same ‘‘no win’’ position as McCain was in? I think that Mitt Romney can handle this better than McCain. He might could pull out and beat Guiliani. However if these two get put in heated debates, don’t be surprised to see the election fall into an all-out up for grabs amongst nearly all of the candidates. You could see someone like Sam Brownback, Ron Paul, or Mike Huckabee come make a surprise run into the primaries, similar to how John Kerry did in 2004.
The Democratic race is very similar. Hillary Clinton is in the same position as Giuliani is in. She has held her ground for much longer, but is now under great pressure from Obama. Is she going to be able to hold on to the lead, or will she give it up to Obama? Or, could they both cancel each other out giving rise to a John Edwards?
Barack Obama, though maybe a little better, is in a similar situation to what John McCain was in. Barack Obama’s bright young face, and slick rhetoric is what is keeping him in longer than John McCain. However Clinton has one thing that Obama does not have. As journalist Josh Rutledge points out, "She [Hillary Clinton] can get away with acting like a jerk and trying to smear him [Barack Obama]. Obama can’t." Hillary Clinton might could use this to her advantage. This could probably take away Barack Obama’s changes. However it is a chance for Clinton as well. She could mess up and cancel both her and Obama out, or, Obama could come back with a counter attack and cancel out Clinton. It may already be a lost cause for Obama, but this could put John Edwards in as sure of a position as ever to win the Democratic primaries. He is slick, and has "been there done that" unlike both Obama and Clinton. For Obama to stand a chance, he must continue to be slick, and careful. Furthermore, he probably needs a mistake or two from Hillary Clinton. Both are very possible, but for them both to happen is unlikely.
It is possible that both of these candidates, Clinton and Obama, could beat their way down to the level of John Edwards, or, that Edwards could meet somewhere in the middle with Clinton and Obama. This could turn into a dead-heated race between the three of them. If they then all cancelled each other out, though, the Democratic primaries could turn into a dead-heat between all of the candidates. Candidates such as Joe Biden, Chris Dodden, Mike Gravel, and Dennis Kucinich, who once thought to have no chance, may have a chance after all.
Any of the candidates, really, still hold a shot at winning- just in their own way. Each candidate brings something that the other candidates are lacking, and thus, will receive some votes. A year ago, many people, including myself to a degree, thought that this could be the year that a third party candidate makes a run- maybe not winning, but perhaps deciding the election, or gains a considerable number of votes in consideration of being a third party candidate. That is still possible, but it is probably next to irrelevant in the primaries. It is probably a little more noticeable from the Republican side, where the candidates are a little more spread out. The moderate Republicans will probably take Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney; the conservative, fundamental Republicans will probably take Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback, or Fred Thompson; the more Libertarian Republicans will probably take Ron Paul. Once again, McCain, who was once the leader, is more or less left out.
Ron Paul himself is an interesting candidate. If you look on the internet, you might think that he is the leading candidate. However if you watch the news, you may hear Guiliani’s name one hundred times before you hear "Ron Paul." Ron Paul calls himself the "True Republican." But yet many Republican’s disown him. He is against the war, he is not for a Federal drug war, and he is not for the Federal banning of abortion. He wants to return the gold standard, which is something too radical and "out there" for both Democrats and Republicans. He is not for a national ID card, and he is not for regulating the internet. Looking at these things, it is easy to see why modern-day Republicans, conservative and moderate, disown him.
But he does offer many conservative ideologies that other Republican candidates are not willing to offer- many things that would be a conservative’s dream. He is a proclaimed Christian. Sure, any candidate could say that, but this goes for all candidates. If you question Paul (who by the way, as we’ll see is the most consistent voter), then you must question every other proclaimed Christian running for President (and every one in the world as well). He is for tougher border security, which is something many Republicans do not like about Bush at the moment. He is for low taxes, and has never voted to raise taxes. He has been called the "tax-payers best friend." He says he will protect your rights to bear arms. He is perhaps the most consistent candidates in voting, as far as not "flip-flopping." He is pro-life. (He is not so much for a Federal ban on abortion, but he would support the ban at the state level). As far as returning to the gold standard, he simply wants to be able to back up any money in circulation with gold- something with true value in itself. This would reduce inflation, help get America out of debt, and probably lower the prices on many goods. None of these things are bad. When gold does not back up money, the government spends money like a credit card. The next generation must pay that credit card bill. He is a strict constructionist in viewing the Constitution, and pledges to uphold it. He would probably be the most Libertarian of conservatives, but also probably the most conservative of the Libertarians. Conservative hero Ronald Reagan said that "The very heart and soul of conservatism is Libertarianism."
Paul probably should campaign on the conservative issues more if wants any chance at winning. He probably needs a lot of help by other candidate’s mistakes, but plenty can happen in five or six months. If nothing else, he might affect the way other candidates run and campaign, and might bring a little different twist to the Republican Party. I also think out of the lesser candidates, Ron Paul is probably the most underrated. He has raised more money than a lot of candidates, but has not spent all that much of it. The internet is also serving as a big help to Paul.
As of to date, Fred Thompson has not made his campaign official, but most people believe it is definite that he will run. Many people consider him real conservative. However after comparing voting records, Ron Paul seems more fiscally conservative than Fred Thompson is. Still out of those who have a good chance to win the Republican nomination, Fred Thompson is probably the most conservative.
There are still many more of the "lesser" candidates from both sides- Tom Tacnredo, Bill Richardson, Mike Huckabee, etc. Tom Tancredo is conservative from the standpoint of tougher immigration laws. He also shows support for school choice. But his main issue is tougher immigration, and as a result, many people view him as a "one-sided candidate." Mike Huckabee, being a former Baptist Minister, might gain some Christian votes. But he has not made as much of a name for himself as someone like Fred Thompson. The Democratic race is pretty uniform compared to the Republican side, but every of the lesser candidates should be ready to take the leading position if Clinton, Obama, and Edwards cancelled each other out.
In the bottom line, both the Republican and Democratic races are open. Sure, the chances of the general election being between Ron Paul and Bill Richardson is slimmer than a sheet of paper. However every candidate on both sides brings something that others are missing. Overall, I continue to give the edge of Giuliani over McCain (I have said this for a while, and it seems to be coming true). I still give the edge to Clinton over Obama, although Obama will probably make more of a run than McCain could on Giuliani. I’m not so sure if Obama’s bright face and slick rhetoric can carry him past Clinton. It would take a Clinton mistake. Obama’s mistake may have been running this year in the first place. Four or eight years from now, he could be nearly unbeatable. For some, such as McCain, and Ron Paul, this may be their last chance, given their old ages. Also, another question to be asked that has not been asked in this article, is "Who are potential running mates?" Probably most of the people running for President would be, as well as others such as Jeb Bush of Florida, former Vice President Al Gore, or possibly even Bob Riley of Alabama. It’s also never too early to ask, "Who could be running in 2012?" Could we see Condoleezza Rice run? Jeff Sessions? Al Gore? Dick Durbin? Or even Roy Moore? Only time will tell, and for now, it is probably best to focus on this election.
As for my prediction, I predict that Rudy Giuliani will carry home the Republican nomination. I do not see McCain catching back up. I do not see Mitt Romney able to pull it off either- being Mormon may get him the mid-west, but Giuliani will probably take a lot of the Southeast, as well as most of the Northeast. I also do not see any other lesser candidate such as Paul, Huckabee, or Tancredo making a strong enough move in to win. As for the Democrats, I must pick also the front runner, Hillary Clinton. I do not see Barack Obama beating Clinton, nor do I see Edwards able to hang on long enough to beat Clinton. Furthermore, I am not sure if another candidate could come in and make a surprise move on her either. I can see Giuliani picking Fred Thompson as his running mate, and I can see Clinton either picking Obama or Al Gore for hers. Don’t take my word as definite, though, because in the world of politics, anything can happen.
Here are some interesting articles on the election (these may be outdated, and may seem somewhat irrelevant at certain points):
An Obama Mistake by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2007/01/obama-mistake.html
Santa Obama by Josh Rutledge- http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/12/santa-obama.html
The Race for 2008 by Ryan Hampton- http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77069405&blogID=272410164
UPCOMING BLOGS: In my next blog, we will take a different and unique look at evolution. How could Charles Darwin’s theories be applied to Christian theology, and make the Christian faith stronger? My next blog will take an interesting look at that. I also plan to post a blog showing my official support for a candidate. I already have a good idea who it is- I just need a little more time to make sure I want to make this support official. Harry Potter- is this a book of wickedness, satanic worship, and magic? Is this a good book that can give us a new way of approaching the Bible? Or is it somewhere in between? I plan to post a blog on this popular book and movie series sometime soon. Also, with college football quickly approaching, I would like to post a blog on my thoughts of this upcoming college football season. I don’t have long to do that either! Check in, if you’d like, to these upcoming posts!
Thanks! In Christ,
Ryan
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Music, Culture, The Church, and The World
MUSIC, CULTURE, THE CHURCH, AND THE WORLD
It is obvious that there is a relation between different styles of music and cultures. Each style of music portrays its very own culture through the music, and sometimes through lyrics presented. Although the music and culture relation can change over time, and is often relative to a particular point in time, it is wrong to assume that one’s music does not have influence on one’s lifestyle, or that one’s lifestyle does not have influence on one’s music. The two are at some very real length related.
For example, country music traditionally portrays the folk lifestyle of rural Southern and Western United States. Rap music generally portrays the lifestyle of the inner cities and streets. There is not necessarily anything wrong with either lifestyle, whether it be rural or inner city. But in today’s world, rightly or wrongly, we see more of a negative image portrayed to the inner city lifestyle. Thus, rap music has generally been held in low regards by fundamentals, whereas country music (to some exceptions) has not been held as "wrong" or "immoral." We even see related styles of country music, such as Southern Gospel or bluegrass in Christian contexts.
These are just mere examples. We could compare soft rock to heavy metal; classical music to jazz music, and so on. Each general style of music portrays a different setting, both in the sounds, and often even reaching to the lyrics. As a songwriter myself, while studying music and writing music, I notice changes in the style, as I portray different settings in the music I write.
In my blog, "The Basement" in which I posted just a few weeks ago, I pointed out the different styles of music, and which I felt are better suited for Christianity, whether for private listening or for corporate worship. I in no way wanted to judge the heart of people whose music tastes are different than mind. I’m sure my tastes in music are very different from a lot of people, and I am fine with that. To reiterate what I wanted to say, I will briefly define my views as this: music can be played for the glory of God, even if it is not "Christian" music; music that is in the name of God and intended to be Christian, should be done in a manner that shows an appropriate context, and does not portray an image that is not suitable to Christianity; corporate worship, for the body of believers, should generally be a style that is distinct from what the world offers. I did also make the point that one should not be judged personally by not following this basic pattern. One may desire to give glory to God in a way that does not follow this pattern, or rule, and God may hear their worship. I simply believe that this is the best manner to give that glory to God. No one should be judge because they are not perfect, because no one is perfect. However, we should all strive to perfection, and as growing Christians, should come closer to that standard.
In this blog, I will seek to defend those basic points in further detail. In doing this, I will even point out certain bands and musicians popular today, from all different genres of music, both Christian and secular. I will give a review of these bands and artists in the context of my points in this blog.
Panic! At the Disco. After hearing a fair amount about them, and knowing none of their music, I decided I would see what they were about. I had already read that their lyrics were somewhat non-Christian, but I wanted to see for myself. I went to lyrics.com, and searched them. I was disgusted after reading some of the lyrics and listening to the music. I thought to myself, "If our culture appreciates this kind of music, then our culture is not where it should be." The music was essentially sac religious. It also got annoying hearing frequent uses of the "F word" and of "G-D." Some of what was said seemed to essentially deny God. One of their song titles is "Build God, Then We’ll Talk." You can search them to learn more about them for yourself. The style of music seemed to nearly reject musical theory. What happened to the definition of music being "a group of notes arranged to make a melody" or something along those lines. Listening to the one or two of their songs, the definition seemed to be "wild noise with a satanic voice in the background." This style of music (not only seen through this band, but others), has earned its recognition of claiming a culture of a sinful lifestyle, centered in drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence.
The Fray. I still don’t know much about The Fray, but I do know at least two of their songs pretty well, and another song is at least recognizable to my ears. Unlike Panic! At the Disco, The Fray at least offered a more mellow sound, with better lyrics. The Fray has not come out as a Christian band, but the lyrics produced are consistent within a Christian worldview. The song, "How To Save a Life" even seems to have somewhat of a decent theme. The lyrics are not watered-down either. They are deep, and both intellectual and heart-originated. I think that the band may be a fad, but at least they are a fad worth listening to for a short period of time. I’m not so sure why they were as popular as they were, or why they are as popular as they are, but their music, from what I have heard, does not promote a sinful lifestyle. Their style of music in general, is also not one that seems to promote a sinful lifestyle. The style of music would probably not be best suited as "Christian," especially not "corporate Christian" but the music does not relate to a lifestyle of drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence as was noted of Panic! At the Disco. Other bands and artists, such as Plus One, Death Cab for Cutie, Ben Smolin, Switchfoot, etc., whether Christian or secular, have produced similar sounding music whose lyrics are also consistent within a Christian worldview. (The music may not be mere identical to The Fray, but close enough to compare). The Fray may not be the best band ever, and it may be nothing more than a fad. But at least the music and lyrics are acceptable to a Christian worldview, and fine for Christians to listen to.
Hawk Nelson. Forgive me for not being up into all the modern Christian music, but I had not heard of Hawk Nelson until this past Winter Jam. I do not know too much about this band to judge in great detail, but from the little I have seen and heard of it, it seems to be a watered-down replica of its watered-down secular culture musical counterpart. The church is distinct from the world. As this music even in secular uses seems watered-down for its own use, I think that this music as proclaimed Christian waters down the Gospel. Forgive me for what seems to be such harsh comments to a group who is probably trying to give praise to God. Once again, if that is indeed their intentions, then I believe that God hears their worship. I know that the music of Hawk Nelson is labeled as Christian and the music of The Fray is not labeled as Christian. But that is essentially my point. The Fray avoids watering down the Gospel by simply portraying what is consistent within the Gospel through means not identifying themselves as Christian. A non-Christian listening to Hawk Nelson may tell himself "If this is what Christianity is, then it seems no different than the world." This goes for both the music and the lyrics. The lyrics of one song seemed to be about how we should help a poor fatherless boy. That’s a good thought, and the church should help those who need help, whether it be physical help, spiritual help, emotional help, etc. However The Fray presents as good of a theme in their music, without claiming "This is what Christianity is." Neither does it say, "This is what Christianity is not." It serves to help both the Christian and the non-Christian by promoting a Christian-consistent theme. Hawk Nelson does the same, except they claim it as Christianity itself.
Steven Curtis Chapman. Another artist I heard at Winter Jam was an older artist, Steven Curtis Chapman. Many would assume that because I considered the music of Hawk Nelson to water-down the Gospel, then I would assume the same of Steven Curtis Chapman. However I do not. It is true that his music was soft rock and the lyrics were not deep, theological, or the kind to make you cry. But they don’t have to be. Steven Curtis Chapman came across as presenting a theme that is Christian, and proclaiming Christianity through himself and his music. But he does not come across as watering down the Gospel. He does not wear rocker T-shirts, have goofy spiked rocker hair, and tattoos. He simply sings music, giving glory to God, and does not seem to search for a big name in himself. I do not think that his music is best suitable for corporate Christian worship, but I do think it is good to listen to. After hearing his performance, I wanted to "dive in" and I wanted to go "wake the neighbors, and get the word out" and to "live out loud." After hearing Hawk Nelson, I was not sure if I wanted to help the poor kid or not. Maybe that is just me, but then again, maybe not. There are plenty of similar bands and artists as Steven Curtis Chapman, who praise Jesus, without watering down Jesus’ message. Such bands/artists include Third Day, Michael W. Smith, Mercy Me, etc. These bands and artists seem to put more emphasis on the personal relations they have with Jesus. I personally feel that in our culture today, we see the corporate relationship to Jesus sadly taken away. However there is a place for the personal emotions, and I am glad to see these bands and artist portray this message without watering down the Gospel to merely nothing.
There are all other sorts of bands and artists similar to these, and all of those in between. There are so many that seem too "edgy" for Christianity, but does not seem to directly attack Christianity. We could ask so many questions of or similar to "Should I not listen to this song, because of its one curse word?" You could ask, "Should I reject any form of hard, heavy, punk rock, whether or not it is Christian, sac religious, or anywhere in between, because much of its style portrays a wrong image?" Some of these questions I can not answer adequately. I myself do not listen to the ‘hard, heavy, punk rock’ partly because of its image, but also because of the fact I don’t like that style of music in general. In country music, there are probably plenty of songs that seem to be against Christianity by its references to drinking or cheating. Could we label country music in the same category as punk or rap in these regards? Even Carrie Underwood’s song, "Before He Cheats" portrays the image of a cheating man, and a woman’s revenge. Both cheating and revenge seem to be "against the Bible." Should Christians reject this song, Carrie Underwood altogether, Country music all together, or even music altogether? Certainly there is a line somewhere in this, whether before the song itself or anywhere in between, because God tells us through His word to worship Him in song. Some genres of music and some songs may have an overlap (such as this song) in the culture it presents. You may could take one song, and use it to destroy the faith, while taking the same song, and use to it defend the faith, all depending on the mental and emotional aspect you put into the song and its meaning. (This may sound a little stretched, but the general point is made). The difference with country music, compared to rap music and punk music (if they even qualify as music), is that the overlap of good meanings and bad meanings found in country music is more apparent, and there are plenty of country songs with good meanings. Rap and punk, rightly or wrongly, seem to portray more of a bad image altogether, with little overlap in what the meaning of the songs could be about.
Regardless of all of these questions, I believe that both the church and the world have essentially lost its music because the of the culture (or the culture has lost what is should be because of the music). There is a relation. Rich Lusk made this point so clear in his sermons, "Through the church the song goes on (parts I & II)" ( trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php 2/11/07,2/18/07 ). If our song is wrong, then our culture is liable to be wrong. Secular music is not bad in and of itself, and even its music can reform or tear down a society. In today’s music, we see a watered down approach to music. When music was once supposed to be about life, and the emotions that flow out of it, it has now seemed to turn into being about money and fame (not to mention the drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence shown in some songs and styles). Even country music, which traditionally is supposed to "tell a story about life," has been watered down.
In the same way, Christian music has been watered down. I wish that we as a church could return to singing "We are God’s People," instead of what Christian music so often offers today. Maybe its time as a Christian community we sing "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born of His Spirit, established by His Word" or "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, it saved a wretch like me" or "The King of Glory comes the nation rejoices; Open the gates before Him, lift up your voices." If we want to revolutionize the world, one place it must start is in the song we sing.
"Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of His power. Praise Him for His mighty acts: praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbreal and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high-sounding cymbals. Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord" Psalm 150.
Through the song and the church, both continue on.
What do you think?
Ryan
It is obvious that there is a relation between different styles of music and cultures. Each style of music portrays its very own culture through the music, and sometimes through lyrics presented. Although the music and culture relation can change over time, and is often relative to a particular point in time, it is wrong to assume that one’s music does not have influence on one’s lifestyle, or that one’s lifestyle does not have influence on one’s music. The two are at some very real length related.
For example, country music traditionally portrays the folk lifestyle of rural Southern and Western United States. Rap music generally portrays the lifestyle of the inner cities and streets. There is not necessarily anything wrong with either lifestyle, whether it be rural or inner city. But in today’s world, rightly or wrongly, we see more of a negative image portrayed to the inner city lifestyle. Thus, rap music has generally been held in low regards by fundamentals, whereas country music (to some exceptions) has not been held as "wrong" or "immoral." We even see related styles of country music, such as Southern Gospel or bluegrass in Christian contexts.
These are just mere examples. We could compare soft rock to heavy metal; classical music to jazz music, and so on. Each general style of music portrays a different setting, both in the sounds, and often even reaching to the lyrics. As a songwriter myself, while studying music and writing music, I notice changes in the style, as I portray different settings in the music I write.
In my blog, "The Basement" in which I posted just a few weeks ago, I pointed out the different styles of music, and which I felt are better suited for Christianity, whether for private listening or for corporate worship. I in no way wanted to judge the heart of people whose music tastes are different than mind. I’m sure my tastes in music are very different from a lot of people, and I am fine with that. To reiterate what I wanted to say, I will briefly define my views as this: music can be played for the glory of God, even if it is not "Christian" music; music that is in the name of God and intended to be Christian, should be done in a manner that shows an appropriate context, and does not portray an image that is not suitable to Christianity; corporate worship, for the body of believers, should generally be a style that is distinct from what the world offers. I did also make the point that one should not be judged personally by not following this basic pattern. One may desire to give glory to God in a way that does not follow this pattern, or rule, and God may hear their worship. I simply believe that this is the best manner to give that glory to God. No one should be judge because they are not perfect, because no one is perfect. However, we should all strive to perfection, and as growing Christians, should come closer to that standard.
In this blog, I will seek to defend those basic points in further detail. In doing this, I will even point out certain bands and musicians popular today, from all different genres of music, both Christian and secular. I will give a review of these bands and artists in the context of my points in this blog.
Panic! At the Disco. After hearing a fair amount about them, and knowing none of their music, I decided I would see what they were about. I had already read that their lyrics were somewhat non-Christian, but I wanted to see for myself. I went to lyrics.com, and searched them. I was disgusted after reading some of the lyrics and listening to the music. I thought to myself, "If our culture appreciates this kind of music, then our culture is not where it should be." The music was essentially sac religious. It also got annoying hearing frequent uses of the "F word" and of "G-D." Some of what was said seemed to essentially deny God. One of their song titles is "Build God, Then We’ll Talk." You can search them to learn more about them for yourself. The style of music seemed to nearly reject musical theory. What happened to the definition of music being "a group of notes arranged to make a melody" or something along those lines. Listening to the one or two of their songs, the definition seemed to be "wild noise with a satanic voice in the background." This style of music (not only seen through this band, but others), has earned its recognition of claiming a culture of a sinful lifestyle, centered in drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence.
The Fray. I still don’t know much about The Fray, but I do know at least two of their songs pretty well, and another song is at least recognizable to my ears. Unlike Panic! At the Disco, The Fray at least offered a more mellow sound, with better lyrics. The Fray has not come out as a Christian band, but the lyrics produced are consistent within a Christian worldview. The song, "How To Save a Life" even seems to have somewhat of a decent theme. The lyrics are not watered-down either. They are deep, and both intellectual and heart-originated. I think that the band may be a fad, but at least they are a fad worth listening to for a short period of time. I’m not so sure why they were as popular as they were, or why they are as popular as they are, but their music, from what I have heard, does not promote a sinful lifestyle. Their style of music in general, is also not one that seems to promote a sinful lifestyle. The style of music would probably not be best suited as "Christian," especially not "corporate Christian" but the music does not relate to a lifestyle of drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence as was noted of Panic! At the Disco. Other bands and artists, such as Plus One, Death Cab for Cutie, Ben Smolin, Switchfoot, etc., whether Christian or secular, have produced similar sounding music whose lyrics are also consistent within a Christian worldview. (The music may not be mere identical to The Fray, but close enough to compare). The Fray may not be the best band ever, and it may be nothing more than a fad. But at least the music and lyrics are acceptable to a Christian worldview, and fine for Christians to listen to.
Hawk Nelson. Forgive me for not being up into all the modern Christian music, but I had not heard of Hawk Nelson until this past Winter Jam. I do not know too much about this band to judge in great detail, but from the little I have seen and heard of it, it seems to be a watered-down replica of its watered-down secular culture musical counterpart. The church is distinct from the world. As this music even in secular uses seems watered-down for its own use, I think that this music as proclaimed Christian waters down the Gospel. Forgive me for what seems to be such harsh comments to a group who is probably trying to give praise to God. Once again, if that is indeed their intentions, then I believe that God hears their worship. I know that the music of Hawk Nelson is labeled as Christian and the music of The Fray is not labeled as Christian. But that is essentially my point. The Fray avoids watering down the Gospel by simply portraying what is consistent within the Gospel through means not identifying themselves as Christian. A non-Christian listening to Hawk Nelson may tell himself "If this is what Christianity is, then it seems no different than the world." This goes for both the music and the lyrics. The lyrics of one song seemed to be about how we should help a poor fatherless boy. That’s a good thought, and the church should help those who need help, whether it be physical help, spiritual help, emotional help, etc. However The Fray presents as good of a theme in their music, without claiming "This is what Christianity is." Neither does it say, "This is what Christianity is not." It serves to help both the Christian and the non-Christian by promoting a Christian-consistent theme. Hawk Nelson does the same, except they claim it as Christianity itself.
Steven Curtis Chapman. Another artist I heard at Winter Jam was an older artist, Steven Curtis Chapman. Many would assume that because I considered the music of Hawk Nelson to water-down the Gospel, then I would assume the same of Steven Curtis Chapman. However I do not. It is true that his music was soft rock and the lyrics were not deep, theological, or the kind to make you cry. But they don’t have to be. Steven Curtis Chapman came across as presenting a theme that is Christian, and proclaiming Christianity through himself and his music. But he does not come across as watering down the Gospel. He does not wear rocker T-shirts, have goofy spiked rocker hair, and tattoos. He simply sings music, giving glory to God, and does not seem to search for a big name in himself. I do not think that his music is best suitable for corporate Christian worship, but I do think it is good to listen to. After hearing his performance, I wanted to "dive in" and I wanted to go "wake the neighbors, and get the word out" and to "live out loud." After hearing Hawk Nelson, I was not sure if I wanted to help the poor kid or not. Maybe that is just me, but then again, maybe not. There are plenty of similar bands and artists as Steven Curtis Chapman, who praise Jesus, without watering down Jesus’ message. Such bands/artists include Third Day, Michael W. Smith, Mercy Me, etc. These bands and artists seem to put more emphasis on the personal relations they have with Jesus. I personally feel that in our culture today, we see the corporate relationship to Jesus sadly taken away. However there is a place for the personal emotions, and I am glad to see these bands and artist portray this message without watering down the Gospel to merely nothing.
There are all other sorts of bands and artists similar to these, and all of those in between. There are so many that seem too "edgy" for Christianity, but does not seem to directly attack Christianity. We could ask so many questions of or similar to "Should I not listen to this song, because of its one curse word?" You could ask, "Should I reject any form of hard, heavy, punk rock, whether or not it is Christian, sac religious, or anywhere in between, because much of its style portrays a wrong image?" Some of these questions I can not answer adequately. I myself do not listen to the ‘hard, heavy, punk rock’ partly because of its image, but also because of the fact I don’t like that style of music in general. In country music, there are probably plenty of songs that seem to be against Christianity by its references to drinking or cheating. Could we label country music in the same category as punk or rap in these regards? Even Carrie Underwood’s song, "Before He Cheats" portrays the image of a cheating man, and a woman’s revenge. Both cheating and revenge seem to be "against the Bible." Should Christians reject this song, Carrie Underwood altogether, Country music all together, or even music altogether? Certainly there is a line somewhere in this, whether before the song itself or anywhere in between, because God tells us through His word to worship Him in song. Some genres of music and some songs may have an overlap (such as this song) in the culture it presents. You may could take one song, and use it to destroy the faith, while taking the same song, and use to it defend the faith, all depending on the mental and emotional aspect you put into the song and its meaning. (This may sound a little stretched, but the general point is made). The difference with country music, compared to rap music and punk music (if they even qualify as music), is that the overlap of good meanings and bad meanings found in country music is more apparent, and there are plenty of country songs with good meanings. Rap and punk, rightly or wrongly, seem to portray more of a bad image altogether, with little overlap in what the meaning of the songs could be about.
Regardless of all of these questions, I believe that both the church and the world have essentially lost its music because the of the culture (or the culture has lost what is should be because of the music). There is a relation. Rich Lusk made this point so clear in his sermons, "Through the church the song goes on (parts I & II)" ( trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php 2/11/07,2/18/07 ). If our song is wrong, then our culture is liable to be wrong. Secular music is not bad in and of itself, and even its music can reform or tear down a society. In today’s music, we see a watered down approach to music. When music was once supposed to be about life, and the emotions that flow out of it, it has now seemed to turn into being about money and fame (not to mention the drugs, sex, moral relativism, and violence shown in some songs and styles). Even country music, which traditionally is supposed to "tell a story about life," has been watered down.
In the same way, Christian music has been watered down. I wish that we as a church could return to singing "We are God’s People," instead of what Christian music so often offers today. Maybe its time as a Christian community we sing "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born of His Spirit, established by His Word" or "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound, it saved a wretch like me" or "The King of Glory comes the nation rejoices; Open the gates before Him, lift up your voices." If we want to revolutionize the world, one place it must start is in the song we sing.
"Praise ye the Lord. Praise God in His sanctuary: praise Him in the firmament of His power. Praise Him for His mighty acts: praise Him according to His excellent greatness. Praise Him with the sound of the trumpet: praise Him with the psaltery and harp. Praise Him with the timbreal and dance: praise Him with stringed instruments and organs. Praise Him upon the loud cymbals: praise him upon the high-sounding cymbals. Let everything that hath breath praise the Lord. Praise ye the Lord" Psalm 150.
Through the song and the church, both continue on.
What do you think?
Ryan
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Who Is God?
Who is God?
Last Thursday, I went to The Pinnacle in Trussville, Al., to put in an application at Bama Fever Tiger Pride, where one half of the store is dedicated to Alabama athletics, and the other half dedicated to Auburn athletics. As soon as I began to open the door, a young lady stopped me, and began asking my name and age. I was somewhat confused, but responded. After this, I was asked if I would like to be interviewed for a documentary by Summit Church.
I agreed, and after signing a piece of paper agreeing to be interviewed, I sat down for the interview, interviewed by a young man. He began asking me basic questions. About the fourth or fifth question in, he asked my who I thought God was. Essentially I responded saying (paraphrased), "God is my Savior, and savior to all who believes in His name; God is also a Trinity, consisting of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; all of these are co-equal with one another, none more powerful than the other, but each with distinctive roles."
Overall, although I stuttered a good bit, I felt satisfied with my answer. However as the day went on, I began to think about the question. So often today’s world, we forget to ask ourselves exactly who God is. Is He some fairy tail who does not exist? Is He just some spirit in the sky with no account in the universe? Is He a being that once was, but now is dead? Or is He something more?
I believe that my answer I gave did satisfy a basic definition of God. He is 1) My Savior, 2) Savior to everyone who believes, and 3) a Trinity, consisting of three distinct but equal persons of one Godhead. But could I go beyond just this?
I remember when I was about eleven years of age, my Father had me memorize the Westminster Confession of Faith Shorter Catechism. This is essentially the beliefs held by many of the early Reformed Protestants, often, but not limited to Presbyterian or Calvinist doctrine (see http://www.opc.org/sc.html ). Question number four is "What is God?" The answer given is, "God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."
I thought about giving an answer along these lines, but I could not remember exactly how the wording of the answer was, and I honestly did not want to appear "cocky" in my answer. Beyond this, I wanted to answer how God is a personal Savior, a savior to all who believes, and a Trinity. The Shorter Catechism definition did not mention any of those three.
But both definitions are true. It is hard to define exactly who the God of the Bible is fully and sufficiently in very simple and quick terms. One can give a definition of what qualifies as a God, but that does not mean that these are the limits to the one true God that exists.
Essentially, God Himself, in His defined identity, is all-powerful, or, omnipotent. He is all-knowing, and in His own way, He is everywhere, or omnipresent. However, this does not sufficiently and fully define who the God of the Bible is.
The God of the Bible is "eternal and unchangeable" in His "Holiness, justice, goodness, and truth," as the Shorter Catechism tell us. God is love. Not every believed God follows these guidelines. But the God of the Bible does, and this definition of God shows consistency in explaining the world today.
It is obvious in the world that knowledge and intelligence exists. I use knowledge and intelligence in writing this very sentence. It is also apparent that there is existence beyond this knowledge, that can not be explained by the explainable, but only by something greater. It is hard enough for an atheist to accept the intelligence of this world without God, but it becomes essentially impossible to explain the true emotions such as love and hate and compassion without God, or certain moral principles without God. The emotions such as love, hate, compassion, etc., seem to imply an eternal attribute to these very emotions themselves. Otherwise, they are nearly meaningless, given that in an atheistic viewpoint, the world has been here for billions of years. How does knowledge, and eternal emotion exist without either being in the defined identity of God Himself, or being completely created by God Himself?
These things can not be explained by the atheist. Even atheists hunger and thirst for community, acceptance, and love. This is essentially who God is- not certain features that He accredited over time, but who He is in His very nature. It is true that God has made sacrifices for man. It is not true to suggest that God had to change Himself in order to make these sacrifices. God has always been a God of love, community, and grace, who works in excessive ways. God did not have to create the universe. Even if He decided to, He could have created a small universe all in one day. Instead, God created a gigantic universe in six days, resting on the Seventh Day. Furthermore, He allowed for sin to exist, where He could have made it stay "good" relative to itself.
Furthermore, God did not have to create man with love for one another, not that He had to create man in general. God created man in His own image. I believe that creation is a continuing act, all of creation ultimately pointing to who God really is. This is not to say that God is sin, because sin exists, but that God can overcome sin, as we are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). Sheldon Vanauken said, "Creation is a continuing act, I believe, and although God allows us choices, His eternal will is acting upon the consequences."
Furthermore, God is love, and essentially, love is a Trinity, just as God is. Rich Lusk, Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), in Birmingham, Al., said (paraphrased), "…And love itself is a Trinity. A Trinity is a union of three. In love, we see two lovers, and the love that they share. Nine months later, that love has a name…" God the Father and God the son share the love of the Holy Spirit; God the Father and God the Holy Spirit share the love of God the Son; God the Holy Spirit and God the Son share the love of God the Father; they are all three driven into communion with each other through love.
The universe as a whole is the continuing outworking of God’s plan, designated to show who God is. That is why man was created in the image of God. I could not answer as to if God created the universe to redeem a fallen people, or if He redeemed a fallen people because His created universe fell. That is beyond my knowledge, and beyond the knowledge of any of my readers. But even the redemption God showed on His fallen people does attest to His grace, which is an essential aspect of who God is in and of Himself. Rich Lusk, in another sermon, said (paraphrased), "Ultimately, the whole Bible is a love story. It is amazing that the Bible begins with a marriage and ends with a marriage; early in Geneses, we see the marriage of Adam and Eve; at the end of the Bible, we see the marriage of Jesus Christ and the church; the Bible is about a man saving His bride, but in order to save his bride, he must die for her."
Unbelievers tell us that the Bible is just a fairy tail like Cinderella or Snow White. They tell us it is just a made up story. The unbelievers are right on one account. The Bible is in many ways a literary story, like these other stories we see. However this story is true. All other love stories and all fairy tails ultimately branch off of this story, as pictures of it. Many old fables and stories show symbolism to a Christian theme. While some say that the Bible is merely a story like all others reflected upon a common story or theme, I believe that the Bible is the common story itself, the true story that other stories are based off of.
The whole story of God is summed up into this: creation, fall, and redemption. In redemption, we have it better than creation before the fall. We have Jesus, a better groom than Adam. We have the church, a better and more sanctified bride than Eve. This story can even be seen in many modern-day movies such as Finding Nemo, or The Lion King. Essentially the theme is this: "In order to find your life, you must lose it." In Finding Nemo, Nemo and his Dad are separated. He lost a part of himself. Most of the movie is about being reunited with his Dad. In the end, the two find each other, are happier because they know who they are, and their respective roles- not to mention that along the way they find a new friend, Dory. In The Lion King, Simba loses his father, and then runs away. Most of the movie is about him being lost, and confused, searching for his place in the world. In the end, Simba becomes King, but to do this, he must fight the fallen enemy, Scar.
These human stories point to God’s story. God’s story points to God Himself. Understanding who God is better helps us defend the faith, and helps us better understand the purpose of God’s plan in general, and where we fit in it.
What do you think?
Ryan
Upcoming Blogs: I plan for my next blog (subject to possible change) to be about music and cultures, and the relationship thereof. I also want to post a blog on the election, so that could be the next blog after that. Thanks,
Ryan
Last Thursday, I went to The Pinnacle in Trussville, Al., to put in an application at Bama Fever Tiger Pride, where one half of the store is dedicated to Alabama athletics, and the other half dedicated to Auburn athletics. As soon as I began to open the door, a young lady stopped me, and began asking my name and age. I was somewhat confused, but responded. After this, I was asked if I would like to be interviewed for a documentary by Summit Church.
I agreed, and after signing a piece of paper agreeing to be interviewed, I sat down for the interview, interviewed by a young man. He began asking me basic questions. About the fourth or fifth question in, he asked my who I thought God was. Essentially I responded saying (paraphrased), "God is my Savior, and savior to all who believes in His name; God is also a Trinity, consisting of three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; all of these are co-equal with one another, none more powerful than the other, but each with distinctive roles."
Overall, although I stuttered a good bit, I felt satisfied with my answer. However as the day went on, I began to think about the question. So often today’s world, we forget to ask ourselves exactly who God is. Is He some fairy tail who does not exist? Is He just some spirit in the sky with no account in the universe? Is He a being that once was, but now is dead? Or is He something more?
I believe that my answer I gave did satisfy a basic definition of God. He is 1) My Savior, 2) Savior to everyone who believes, and 3) a Trinity, consisting of three distinct but equal persons of one Godhead. But could I go beyond just this?
I remember when I was about eleven years of age, my Father had me memorize the Westminster Confession of Faith Shorter Catechism. This is essentially the beliefs held by many of the early Reformed Protestants, often, but not limited to Presbyterian or Calvinist doctrine (see http://www.opc.org/sc.html ). Question number four is "What is God?" The answer given is, "God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."
I thought about giving an answer along these lines, but I could not remember exactly how the wording of the answer was, and I honestly did not want to appear "cocky" in my answer. Beyond this, I wanted to answer how God is a personal Savior, a savior to all who believes, and a Trinity. The Shorter Catechism definition did not mention any of those three.
But both definitions are true. It is hard to define exactly who the God of the Bible is fully and sufficiently in very simple and quick terms. One can give a definition of what qualifies as a God, but that does not mean that these are the limits to the one true God that exists.
Essentially, God Himself, in His defined identity, is all-powerful, or, omnipotent. He is all-knowing, and in His own way, He is everywhere, or omnipresent. However, this does not sufficiently and fully define who the God of the Bible is.
The God of the Bible is "eternal and unchangeable" in His "Holiness, justice, goodness, and truth," as the Shorter Catechism tell us. God is love. Not every believed God follows these guidelines. But the God of the Bible does, and this definition of God shows consistency in explaining the world today.
It is obvious in the world that knowledge and intelligence exists. I use knowledge and intelligence in writing this very sentence. It is also apparent that there is existence beyond this knowledge, that can not be explained by the explainable, but only by something greater. It is hard enough for an atheist to accept the intelligence of this world without God, but it becomes essentially impossible to explain the true emotions such as love and hate and compassion without God, or certain moral principles without God. The emotions such as love, hate, compassion, etc., seem to imply an eternal attribute to these very emotions themselves. Otherwise, they are nearly meaningless, given that in an atheistic viewpoint, the world has been here for billions of years. How does knowledge, and eternal emotion exist without either being in the defined identity of God Himself, or being completely created by God Himself?
These things can not be explained by the atheist. Even atheists hunger and thirst for community, acceptance, and love. This is essentially who God is- not certain features that He accredited over time, but who He is in His very nature. It is true that God has made sacrifices for man. It is not true to suggest that God had to change Himself in order to make these sacrifices. God has always been a God of love, community, and grace, who works in excessive ways. God did not have to create the universe. Even if He decided to, He could have created a small universe all in one day. Instead, God created a gigantic universe in six days, resting on the Seventh Day. Furthermore, He allowed for sin to exist, where He could have made it stay "good" relative to itself.
Furthermore, God did not have to create man with love for one another, not that He had to create man in general. God created man in His own image. I believe that creation is a continuing act, all of creation ultimately pointing to who God really is. This is not to say that God is sin, because sin exists, but that God can overcome sin, as we are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). Sheldon Vanauken said, "Creation is a continuing act, I believe, and although God allows us choices, His eternal will is acting upon the consequences."
Furthermore, God is love, and essentially, love is a Trinity, just as God is. Rich Lusk, Pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), in Birmingham, Al., said (paraphrased), "…And love itself is a Trinity. A Trinity is a union of three. In love, we see two lovers, and the love that they share. Nine months later, that love has a name…" God the Father and God the son share the love of the Holy Spirit; God the Father and God the Holy Spirit share the love of God the Son; God the Holy Spirit and God the Son share the love of God the Father; they are all three driven into communion with each other through love.
The universe as a whole is the continuing outworking of God’s plan, designated to show who God is. That is why man was created in the image of God. I could not answer as to if God created the universe to redeem a fallen people, or if He redeemed a fallen people because His created universe fell. That is beyond my knowledge, and beyond the knowledge of any of my readers. But even the redemption God showed on His fallen people does attest to His grace, which is an essential aspect of who God is in and of Himself. Rich Lusk, in another sermon, said (paraphrased), "Ultimately, the whole Bible is a love story. It is amazing that the Bible begins with a marriage and ends with a marriage; early in Geneses, we see the marriage of Adam and Eve; at the end of the Bible, we see the marriage of Jesus Christ and the church; the Bible is about a man saving His bride, but in order to save his bride, he must die for her."
Unbelievers tell us that the Bible is just a fairy tail like Cinderella or Snow White. They tell us it is just a made up story. The unbelievers are right on one account. The Bible is in many ways a literary story, like these other stories we see. However this story is true. All other love stories and all fairy tails ultimately branch off of this story, as pictures of it. Many old fables and stories show symbolism to a Christian theme. While some say that the Bible is merely a story like all others reflected upon a common story or theme, I believe that the Bible is the common story itself, the true story that other stories are based off of.
The whole story of God is summed up into this: creation, fall, and redemption. In redemption, we have it better than creation before the fall. We have Jesus, a better groom than Adam. We have the church, a better and more sanctified bride than Eve. This story can even be seen in many modern-day movies such as Finding Nemo, or The Lion King. Essentially the theme is this: "In order to find your life, you must lose it." In Finding Nemo, Nemo and his Dad are separated. He lost a part of himself. Most of the movie is about being reunited with his Dad. In the end, the two find each other, are happier because they know who they are, and their respective roles- not to mention that along the way they find a new friend, Dory. In The Lion King, Simba loses his father, and then runs away. Most of the movie is about him being lost, and confused, searching for his place in the world. In the end, Simba becomes King, but to do this, he must fight the fallen enemy, Scar.
These human stories point to God’s story. God’s story points to God Himself. Understanding who God is better helps us defend the faith, and helps us better understand the purpose of God’s plan in general, and where we fit in it.
What do you think?
Ryan
Upcoming Blogs: I plan for my next blog (subject to possible change) to be about music and cultures, and the relationship thereof. I also want to post a blog on the election, so that could be the next blog after that. Thanks,
Ryan
Thursday, August 2, 2007
An Election Speech I'd Love to Hear
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I am running for the office of President of these United States, and I ask for your vote this election year.
As your President, I will place a stronger emphasis on our Constitution, as our founders so well had in mind. Many Presidents in the past have sworn on the very Word of God to uphold our Constitution, and many of them then forgot about our Constitution. I will hold a strict view in interpreting this document, limiting my power to what it says.
As your President, I will reduce the size of the Central Government. I will not raise taxes on you. As your President, I will abolish the Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage helps some people, but hurts far more than it helps. Besides just this, the Central Government has no Constitutional authority to issue a minimum wage. I will put no price caps on our goods, but rather allow the free market to flourish in this great nation. In all ways, I will support capitalism over communism for this nation.
Education. Education is a great part of our nation, and the future of our nation depends on the education of our children. However in the past we have seen more and more Federal money budgeted towards our public schools, and our schools have not improved much at all. I believe in making education more local, rather than central. I do not believe our founders had in mind to have a nation-wide school program for everyone. For these reasons and for the sake of our children, I will take away the role of the U.S. Central Government in education, leaving states to decide for themselves whether they want a school system similar to the way it is now, a school voucher program, or the privatization of education altogether.
Abortion. Abortion, I believe, is the killing of an unborn baby. As a Christian, I believe that an unborn baby is a life and that that life is sacred. For this, I will support the outlawing of abortion in this nation, and at the least support allowing our states the rights on the matter itself. Currently, we keep the states from passing laws against abortion. I would love nothing better, than whether through Federal Law, or the law of all fifty states, the nationwide outlawing of this horrible act of murder, abortion.
Homosexual marriage. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage is sacred, and even religious in its very nature. For these reasons, I am opposed to homosexual marriage, or to polygamous marriages. However for the sake of upholding the Constitution, I will not favor a Constitutional law against this act. Rather, I will leave it up to the states, giving more power to the states, as our founders so clearly and so rightfully had in mind. I would hope that these states, even to the final fiftieth of them, would make laws against this false version of marriage. However as your Commander in Chief, I do not believe I have the authority to make that decision for them myself.
This war. We are currently in the middle of a long, ongoing war. I am depressed seeing my nation in this war. What I am more depressed about, though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are making this a political issue, even at the expense of innocent American lives. I wish every person in this nation would remember how it felt on September 11, 2001. If we remember how most of us felt that day, we would remember that there was an enemy. We wanted to secure ourselves at home, and go on the offense against our enemy. This enemy is still out there. For this reason, I am not against this war in and of itself. However we first went to war to win; we are now in the war for political purposes. I am for the destruction of our enemies, while saving as many American lives as possible. As your President, I would make this war a war against them- the terrorists, our enemies. Our founders were very skeptical, and rightfully so, of us getting involved in foreign affairs. I will try to make this war as short as possible, but as helpful as possible. I will not go into remote areas in the world simply out of curiosity. I will go only where I need to go in order to make us safer at home.
Foreign aid. Today, we see many third-world countries suffering from poor economies, poverty, and crime. I believe that as a nation we should help other nations. This belief is Biblical, and even Constitutional. However, we should be very careful in getting into foreign affairs. Many of these third-world countries are in this poverty because of their own mistakes, involving a government damaging their economy with many government regulations. As a result many brilliant people from third-world countries come to better places such as America. Therefore, we should be very careful in helping these nations. Often, we give money to greedy politicians who squander the money to their own personal benefit.
Immigration. As your President, I desire to be tougher on immigration. I do not want one person in this nation here illegally. Those who desire to come here and take advantage of us, or those who desire to come here as terrorists, should not be here, and I desire the prosecuting of such individuals. Whether it be our Northern border, or our Southern border, I, as your Commander in Chief, desire to protect these borders from illegal aliens. As a nation, we will be open to immigration, but only those who come here legally, wanting to partake in the American dream.
As your President, I will fight for you, in all these ways. I will limit the Central Government to its Constitutional authorities: to protect your rights, and protect our land. I will not take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, nor raise taxes on these citizens; I plan to give you more choice on your education, and give states more choices on their laws. I will protect our borders, and fight against terrorism overseas, but not for any purposes that are merely political. As your President I will fight for you. I believe that my administration can be remembered by what I don’t do, rather than what I actually do. My administration will be one that brings peace and freedom to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I ask for your vote this election year!
As your President, I will place a stronger emphasis on our Constitution, as our founders so well had in mind. Many Presidents in the past have sworn on the very Word of God to uphold our Constitution, and many of them then forgot about our Constitution. I will hold a strict view in interpreting this document, limiting my power to what it says.
As your President, I will reduce the size of the Central Government. I will not raise taxes on you. As your President, I will abolish the Federal minimum wage. The minimum wage helps some people, but hurts far more than it helps. Besides just this, the Central Government has no Constitutional authority to issue a minimum wage. I will put no price caps on our goods, but rather allow the free market to flourish in this great nation. In all ways, I will support capitalism over communism for this nation.
Education. Education is a great part of our nation, and the future of our nation depends on the education of our children. However in the past we have seen more and more Federal money budgeted towards our public schools, and our schools have not improved much at all. I believe in making education more local, rather than central. I do not believe our founders had in mind to have a nation-wide school program for everyone. For these reasons and for the sake of our children, I will take away the role of the U.S. Central Government in education, leaving states to decide for themselves whether they want a school system similar to the way it is now, a school voucher program, or the privatization of education altogether.
Abortion. Abortion, I believe, is the killing of an unborn baby. As a Christian, I believe that an unborn baby is a life and that that life is sacred. For this, I will support the outlawing of abortion in this nation, and at the least support allowing our states the rights on the matter itself. Currently, we keep the states from passing laws against abortion. I would love nothing better, than whether through Federal Law, or the law of all fifty states, the nationwide outlawing of this horrible act of murder, abortion.
Homosexual marriage. As a Christian, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that marriage is sacred, and even religious in its very nature. For these reasons, I am opposed to homosexual marriage, or to polygamous marriages. However for the sake of upholding the Constitution, I will not favor a Constitutional law against this act. Rather, I will leave it up to the states, giving more power to the states, as our founders so clearly and so rightfully had in mind. I would hope that these states, even to the final fiftieth of them, would make laws against this false version of marriage. However as your Commander in Chief, I do not believe I have the authority to make that decision for them myself.
This war. We are currently in the middle of a long, ongoing war. I am depressed seeing my nation in this war. What I am more depressed about, though, is that both Democrats and Republicans are making this a political issue, even at the expense of innocent American lives. I wish every person in this nation would remember how it felt on September 11, 2001. If we remember how most of us felt that day, we would remember that there was an enemy. We wanted to secure ourselves at home, and go on the offense against our enemy. This enemy is still out there. For this reason, I am not against this war in and of itself. However we first went to war to win; we are now in the war for political purposes. I am for the destruction of our enemies, while saving as many American lives as possible. As your President, I would make this war a war against them- the terrorists, our enemies. Our founders were very skeptical, and rightfully so, of us getting involved in foreign affairs. I will try to make this war as short as possible, but as helpful as possible. I will not go into remote areas in the world simply out of curiosity. I will go only where I need to go in order to make us safer at home.
Foreign aid. Today, we see many third-world countries suffering from poor economies, poverty, and crime. I believe that as a nation we should help other nations. This belief is Biblical, and even Constitutional. However, we should be very careful in getting into foreign affairs. Many of these third-world countries are in this poverty because of their own mistakes, involving a government damaging their economy with many government regulations. As a result many brilliant people from third-world countries come to better places such as America. Therefore, we should be very careful in helping these nations. Often, we give money to greedy politicians who squander the money to their own personal benefit.
Immigration. As your President, I desire to be tougher on immigration. I do not want one person in this nation here illegally. Those who desire to come here and take advantage of us, or those who desire to come here as terrorists, should not be here, and I desire the prosecuting of such individuals. Whether it be our Northern border, or our Southern border, I, as your Commander in Chief, desire to protect these borders from illegal aliens. As a nation, we will be open to immigration, but only those who come here legally, wanting to partake in the American dream.
As your President, I will fight for you, in all these ways. I will limit the Central Government to its Constitutional authorities: to protect your rights, and protect our land. I will not take away the guns of law-abiding citizens, nor raise taxes on these citizens; I plan to give you more choice on your education, and give states more choices on their laws. I will protect our borders, and fight against terrorism overseas, but not for any purposes that are merely political. As your President I will fight for you. I believe that my administration can be remembered by what I don’t do, rather than what I actually do. My administration will be one that brings peace and freedom to the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
Ladies and Gentlemen of these United States of America, I ask for your vote this election year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
