Happy Halloween

Today is Halloween. It is the day we carve pumpkins, trick-or-treat, tell ghost stories, or perhaps, complain about the 'satanic' influence of this day. Some consider it a holiday. Some consider nothing at all. Some call it the Devil's holiday. Some people refuse to recognize it or do anything for it.

What many people do not realize is the history behind it. Originally, according to many historian scholars, it began with the Celts in Ireland. They celebrated their New Year on November 1st. This was the end of summer, and the beginning of winter according to their tradition. This would damage crops, making it harder to survive. The night before this was thought to be the night when the souls of the living and of the dead blurred together.

But while this is all scary-sounding, and much like the modern-day view of Halloween, the actual real history of Halloween is largely Christian. As time went on, Christianity spread into the Celtic area. No more were the major fears of the dead becoming living. Now, a Christian influence had spread, and it was time to end this non-Christian view Halloween (then called Samhain). Pope Boniface IV designated November 1st as All Saints Day. October 31st was All Hallows Eve (Hallows meaning 'Hallowed one's' or 'Saints'), and eventually, Halloween (note the similarities in names).

From here it history is disputed. Some blame the Christians for jealously taking over a secular holiday. According to these people, Pope Boniface IV was responsible for this. Others say that there was no relation at all between Halloween and Samhain, and the Samhain tradition simply followed over into the eve of the Christian holiday, All Saints Day. Some consider the Pope was intentionally replacing the older Celtic tradition, but was justifiable in doing so. According to these people, Christianity spread, so the once secular and somewhat satanic holiday should be Christianized. Dressing up as "scary" creatures may symbolize either Christians scaring the deamons of Satan, the Christians mocking Satan, or could symbolize the Christians lack of fear for Satan and his demons. It is really up for debate and question, and up to the individual family how they see it.

But whether or not you celebrate Halloween, perhaps you can celebrate Reformation Day. All Saints Day and the Irish/Celtic tradition of Samhain all came before Reformation Day. But it is fitting that Reformation Day be celebrated at the time we do honor all of our Saints.

On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther (seen on left) nailed his ninety-five thesis on the church door at Wittenburg (or perhaps mailed them, but the traditional thought is that he nailed them). This sparked the Reformation. Most churches celebrate Reformation Day the last Sunday of October, but the historical date of it is October 31st.

Though this was the Protestant Reformation, perhaps Roman Catholics can celebrate this as well. The univeral church has never been perfect, but God is always giving it Reform. Sometimes the reform stands out, and other times it does not. Martin Luther was not a perfect man, nor were any of the one's who followed after him, such as John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Brucer, etc. But these were all men who pledged their faith in Jesus Christ, and made their stand on God's Word. May we always, of any denomination, pledge our lives to God, and look to bring reform to the church and to the world.



John Calvin, seen to the left.





So however you celebrate this day, or if you do not at all, my wish is that it is done in fear of the Lord. If you celebrate Halloween, then may you celebrate it in light of the Gospel. May you look to God, and be thankful for all the Saints who have pledged their lives and Sacred honor to God. May we do the same today.

For a couple of interesting articles, see these:

http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=713

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/open-book/no-28-concerning-halloween/


"Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen. [Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.]" -Martin Luther, Diet of Worms. When asked if he would recant, he gave his famous, "Here I Stand" speech, saying that he would not recant, unless convinced by "God's Word and pure reason."



What do you think?

God bless the church

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

October 31, 2007

Ryan Hampton

I Am Now Eagle Scout - Thanks To All

Tonight I completed the requirements of my Eagle Scout by passing the Eagle Scout Board of Review. I should hear back from Boy Scouts of America soon, as all of the information is processed nationally. I would like to take this time to thank all of you who have encouraged me along the way, whether as a friend, family member, scout, any or all of the above.
Just below is a picture of how the area of my project looked before hand.


I began as a scout in Tiger cubs, and worked my way a little there. But after a while, I lost interest to basketball and left. I came back in Pack 335 where my Uncle was Den Leader with my cousin Devin. I had fun in Webelos I & Webelos II. I left there to Troop 351. In 2003, I left Troop 351 and went to Troop 335, where I have been since. I have been Patrol Leader, Senior Patrol Leader, Historian, Assistant Senior Patrol Leader, and finally now Chaplain's Aid and Troop Guide.
Below is a picture of some of the work being done.


My project was a bit difficult. You have probably been seeing some pictures from my project on here. But with many people encouraging me, I succeded, even if my original goal of laying some 14 yards of concrete was not accomplished! It was difficult and time-consuming, but it was all worth it.
And as you see below, we are moving right along. The images speek for themselves!


I would like to thank everyone for whatever part you have had. God, my family, my friends, and those in the Troop- especially my Scoutmasters- Mr. Cuntiff, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Lenz (RIP), and Mr. Milam. Also a thanks to my Uncle David who got me back into Scouts when I was about 9. If you received an e-mail from me telling you thanks, then you are included - even if I did write to my entire address book. If I left you out, then don't worry. I might not have your e-mail address, or something could have messed up in sending it to you - or you may just be a random viewer of this. I know that there's many of those! (Not really). I will let you know of the plans for my ceremony. Thanks again, and God bless,
Hey, I am working! I am in the picture below!

And there is some of the final work being done.


Ryan

A Tribute To Lynyrd Skynyrd

This is also seen on the Reckless Abandon music page. Reckless Abandon is the band I am in. [See Links].

Yesterday marked the 30th anniversary since the plain crash killing several of the members of Lynyrd Skynyrd. In this crash, lead singer Ronnie Van Zant, guitarist Steve Gaines, his sister and backup singer Cassie Gaines, another backup singer with the group, and a tour manager, were all killed in this plane crash. In my opinion, Lynyrd Skynyrd, as a music group, is one of the greatest of all time in Rock-N-Roll history. Lynyrd Skynyrd mixed rock, country, and blues together to make a real but semi-twangy southern rock. Their song Freebird has rivaled Led Zeplin's song "Stairway to Heaven" as the most requested songs on FM radio. If you are pickin' away at the guitar at a local party, you should never be surprised someone in the audience to yell "Freebird!!" or another of their great songs. In fact, just yesterday at Reckless Abandon's first gig, there were three of their songs played, of course, Freebird being "requested."

But their fame was well deserved. Their fame proved not to be a fad. They played music relative to the working American - which is who they were. I personally consider the great late Ronnie Van Zant (original singer of Lynyrd Skynyrd), as one of my lyrical inspirations. The songs were relative to true stories. "Gimmie Three Steps" was inspired from a true story. "The Ballad of Curtis Leow" was actually inspired from a group of great blues singer. "Freebird" was used as a metaphor for the groups outlook to much of life. Only Ronnie Van Zant wrote of the haunting question, "If I leave here tomorow, would you still remember me?" Lynyrd Skynyrd is perhaps the only rock band in history who through the lyrics of Ronnie Van Zant, would write a song as a tribute to their mother. They did this through their song "Simpleman" which shows a dialogue between Van Zant's mother and Van Zant, with his mother doing all the talking through her precious wisdom. Only Ronnie Van Zant showed through poetic romantic literature his utopian view, but realism of the "concrede slowly creeping" into his Southern and traditional home. In this song, "All I Can Do (is write about it)," Van Zant says he can't make changes, but can only write his experiences is a song. This has got to only show Van Zant's pride in the band and its music.

But it was also the sound of the band that drew long-term attention as well. The band mixed Southern country with blues and a driving rock. The guitar solo's for "Freebird" and Simpleman" were almost as good as the powerful lyrics for the songs. The powerful duo of Allan Collins and Gary Rossington was simply amazing. Lynyrd Skynyrd is the holder of what is perhaps the greatest Southern Rock song of all time, "Sweet Home Alabama."

Perhaps many musicians of today can learn from the great Lynyrd Skynyrd. Not many musicians or bands have the same powerful lyrics and powerful music as was found in Lynyrd Skynyrd. Since the plane crash they have just not been the same. But the apparent answer to the haunting question "If I leave here tomorow, would you still remember me," appears to be an obvious yes.

Rest in peace.

The Forgotton Purpose of America's Constitution

This is a paper I wrote for a school class (Government and Economics) concerning the purpose of a Constitutional Government in America.

Why a Constitutional Government?

Perhaps the most important, but yet most overlooked document in America today, is the Constitution. Many government officials take an oath on the very Bible to uphold the Constitution, only to break it severely. But it is the Americans that elect these people into office, only to believe lies not permitted by the Constitution. How could both every-day Americans and our leaders be so blind? And what is the purpose of a Constitutional government, anyway?

There are many angles one could take as to why we have a Constitutional form of government. But it is probably best to begin by having a basic understanding of what government is. First, both the idea of government and the idea of limited government are theistic ideas. We have government to secure the self-evident rights we have, most commonly referred to as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights are self-evident and logical. However to an atheist, there is no ground to justify morality on pure logic. Therefore, having a government to use force against citizens using force to damage the self-evident rights of others is only consistent in a theistic worldview.

However the very idea of a limited government is also theistic. In an atheistic worldview, the only purpose of government would be for it to become their "God." The government would then become the moral police of the world, and essentially become communistic in the economy. But the people who comprise the government are sinful people, and it would be dangerous to give them too much power. The idea of a limited but yet strong government gives rise to people living their own lives, pursuing their own dreams, having their own religious beliefs- all without taking away these rights of other people. This is made so clear in the Declaration of Independence, in saying, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, government are instituted amongst men…"

The essential purpose of government is to guard the land in which it governs, and protect the rights of its inhabitants. The government should be strong, and the government should be limited. Essentially, government is force. This is essentially what governments exist for. However there is some variation of different bodies of government relative to the time, the government jurisdiction, and related bodies of government near it. There is not one absolute "method," to anything that government is, should do, or should not do. Therefore, it becomes essential to look at the United States today and in the day it was founded, as to why it holds a written Constitution.

The government of the United States is complex and sophisticated. The government was founded by the common causes of the colonies who were dissolving their allegiances to the British government. Originally, all colonies were very skeptical of having any sort of general government around them. However each colony wanted to be stronger in itself. For this reason, the colonies compromised some of its powers to a central government. The founders wanted to make this government a government that would make the colonies stronger, but also keep as much power in the colonies as possible. Before drafting the Constitution, the founders originally drafted the Articles of Confederation.

The founders created a sort of mixed government. It is hard to use just one word or phrase to describe the government in America. Contrary to popular belief, America is not a Democracy, although there are some democratic principles that make up what American government is. But if there is one phrase to describe American government after the drafting of the Constitution, it would be as a constitutional federated republic. To study why the term "Constitutional" is used, we should first study the term republic, moving our way to "Constitutional."

A Republic is a government whose general power rests in the hands of the people, but whose people elect officials and representatives in order to enforce laws and secure the peace. This is basic American government. But American government is still unique. As noted above, America is a mixed government. But not just that, America is a federal system of government. What does this mean?

The American government is composed of a Federal, or perhaps better put, "Central" Government. But within this central government, there are several states with their governments exercised through a similar method of mixed government. There was a federal, or "covenantal" relationship between the state governments and the central government. The states give up a portion of their just powers to the central government for national defense, common trade, and the like. However the central government was limited perhaps more than the states. Knowing exactly where to draw the lines for the duty of the central government as opposed to the state governments was hard. What would the founders do now in order to secure this order?

This is where they envisioned a Constitution. A written word and document does better than mere ideas. Not just this, but they were inspired by the Judeo-Christian idea of a written word- as is done with the Bible- as well as the many documents in their colonial history. The American founders believed strongly in holding to a binding agreement- especially if it is written. Now the leaders can take oath not just to mere flexible ideas, but to a written word.

The Constitution was written as a binding agreement on apart of the states in the Union, and the Central Government over the states. At the time, there had been argument as to the superiority, or lack thereof, of government and the people. Furthermore, there was argument as to what level of government- the states or the Central Government- was superior to each other. Some people believed that the Central Government was, or at least should be, the dominant and superior government over the states and the people. Others believed that the states were superior to the people of their respective states, and to the Central Government. Others believed that the people were the overall and superior power and that governments exist only to secure this superiority. The Constitution used all of these ideas to explain what rights each level of government has. The people are sovereign to their own wills as long as they do not offend the sovereign rights of others. Yet the people must submit to governmental authority. But the Constitution went further by designating who has the rights to pass and enforce laws regarding what constitutes as offending the sovereign rights of others. If a law should be passed, who should pass the law? Is it the states or the Central Government?

Once again, the Constitution answered these questions in written form. The founders also formed three branches of government: the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the executive branch. There was still common law, that is, unwritten law. But this must show sovereignty to statutory law, or written law. The chief and sovereign form of this statutory law is the Constitution.

Moreover, the Constitution gave defined improvement in the nation’s government from the Articles of Confederation. A Confederation often seems to either fall apart in time, or be dominated by the largest state. The Constitution was more than just different bodies of government working for some common cause. The Constitution gave this cause a general government, and in written word would resolve any conflict left by an unstable Confederation. The Constitution did not give this general government a lot more power than it could have vested from the Articles of Confederation, but it did establish real stability that the Articles of Confederation did not. Most of the people who were for the Constitution did fear the government, particularly the Central Government, gaining too much power. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to suppose that the founders did not heavily ponder on the roles of each government and just immaturely and hastily draft a Constitution. The thought and fear that went into the drafters of the Constitution is missing in many politicians in America today.

This was the reasoning that went into the drafting of the Constitution. Essentially, a written document was something the founders had much respect for. It was seen in the Bible, and in many documents drafted by the colonies before the American Revolution. What better way to secure the rights of people than to have a written word that, in much detail, prescribes the roles of government, limiting them to essentially defending the rights of the people? Thomas Jefferson said that the natural tendency in government is for a government to gain power. He was right, as is evident in comparing America today with the America at the time of the founders. But the problem with the political America today is perhaps not that we have a
Constitution, but that our leaders forget about it.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

October 18, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Christian Music

Christian Music
October 12, 2007

A major way God moves His people is through music. Music is a common theme throughout the Bible. We are told to praise God with music (Psalm 33:3, 40:3, 137:4, Isaiah 23:16). Music itself was created by God and has existed since creation, and will always exist. Music is distinct from other general sounds. Music is sound, but not all sound is music. The popular styles of music change, but music itself never changes.

Music is a reflection on religion, culture, and lifestyle. Music itself is amoral- that is, without moral absolutes behind it. There is no way we can say as an absolute fact that any style of music is wrong, or that any kind is necessarily and always better than another. However relative to given points in time, music can have an impact on someone depending on the culture it relates to. In the Southeast today, we see many people using popular sounds of music with spiritual lyrics to give praise to God. There seems to be a revival-like attitude sweeping through our churches in Christianity today, as shown largely through the music.

Music is amoral, but yet can be related to given cultures, whether sinful or Godly. How can Christians today apply this to their lives? How does music influence our corporate worship, private walk with God, and every decision we make? How can we relate Christian music in particular to these questions as well?

First off, we should look to Scripture. Scripture speaks of everything either directly or indirectly. What becomes hard is knowing what to believe when it is not mentioned in the Bible directly. There are many cases of Christian doctrine, or of any issue today, that are believed even when the Bible does not directly support the belief in mind. However we should remember that sometimes the Bible may speak of something indirectly. As a somewhat extreme example, what if someone said "college football needs playoffs." There is no direct Scriptural evidence to defend that claim, but it may be a true statement. The Bible speaks, you could say, of fairness, equality, etc., and then it is up to us to decide what constitutes as Biblical fairness and equality. There is not that much said about music genre, music lyrics, etc. in the Bible directly, but that does not mean we can not reach a Biblically based conclusion with truth and objective to it. However the Bible speaking of everything whether directly or indirectly does not mean there is an absolute right and wrong to any given subject at hand. Music itself was already stated as amoral. This is a premise, however, and if shown to be false by Scripture, can be rejected. However I do not believe that Scripture would object to this, although there may be some relative sense of morality in music because it relates to the culture, people, or the person who listens to it. We should now use Scripture in finding the balance to these premises. The below will sum up what was said:

1): Scripture should be used, whether directly or indirectly, to defend anything we believe, because Scripture is absolute and speaks of everything whether directly or indirectly (presupposition).
2): Music is amoral, that is, lacking absolute moral sensitivity (premise).
3): Morality can be indirectly and relatively related to music (premise). [This does not mean that morality is absolutely relative, but that it is relatively absolute. The ‘relative’ in this case is only based off of God’s absolute standard of morality].

I have written of some of this before, getting mixed opinions. First off, for those who have read some of what I have said of Christian music, I in no way judge anyone based merely off of the music they listen to, or whether the Christian music they listen to is contemporary, tradition, or classical. I do not think that it is Biblical to just reject any style of music absolutely, whether it be Christian or secular. I have heard of people who would essentially bash contemporary Christian music, and I find no direct or indirect Scriptural evidence to do such a thing. However we should keep a few things in mind.

For one thing, the church is distinct from the world. The church should not just mimic the world, even in the name of gaining followers. Another thing we should keep in mind is what point number three (seen above), gets at. Music and culture are related, and culture and religion are related as well. Essentially, all culture is, is religion externalized. Music is music, but we can tell a lot about a culture based on its song. Therefore, there is some sort of moral sensitivity that should be placed in music. This leads me to my third point. As Christians, anything we do, especially if done directly in the name of Christ, should be done with complete reverence and fear. If music images a culture, then church music, at some level, should be unique, because the church is unique.

Once again, we should not declare anything as completely absolute. We should be bringing the nations to Christ, and so in theory, if the world had a largely unified culture, unified in Christ (a utopian view), then there would be no reason to be distinct. In the same sense, it is true that the church is to be ‘in’ the world. Furthermore, the world in the sense of the universal planet earth, is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. Even a culture within the world is filled of both Christians and non-Christians. There are some traditions that are held by both Christians and non-Christians. The difference is found in the motive. What often separates music as being glorifying to God or not is the motive of the musician, and all those who listen to or sing or play the music.

Here, we see a two-fold relationship. On one hand, logic seems to tell us that Christian music should be separate and unique from other music. On the other hand we seem to see that Christian music can give full glory to God no matter what genre it is of. Music is music, and the styles may change. The sound of classical Christian music today may have been considered ‘pop’ music five hundred years ago (in theory). Will people see bands such as Third Day, Mercy Me, etc., five-hundred years from now in the same way we see people such as Martin Luther and John Newton today?

So once again, there is this nagging two-fold relationship. We dug deeper, but the two sides are still there. They haven’t yet reached a point. We can all reach different conclusions, and perhaps, you have already disagreed with my logic. But now I desire to write what my conclusions would be.

All of our music should be done with full reverence to God. Any music written for God should be done in fear. This does not mean that songs can not be ‘simple’ and still good. But the song should be something that comes from the heart, and the heart should be focused on God. Therefore, any Christian song written should be bold, firm, and attesting to the grace of God.
Beyond this, I believe that there is a difference between corporate church music and private Christian music. The Christian is a Christian in personal sense, but also in the corporate sense. When a portion of the body of Christ comes into God’s presence and assembles for corporate worship, they are called out of the world. They are called boldly, and they should come in a manner that shows their corporate relationship with Christ. We are the body, not a bunch of bodies. We are one. We are the body and the bride of Christ. The music should reflect God’s work with His people, and His people’s work together with God. I believe that today’s popular Christian music reflects more of the personal relationship with Jesus, while traditional or classical hymns reflect the overall picture. Both are important and have their place, but corporate worship is designed for the overall picture.

When I am driving down the road by myself, I don’t necessarily enjoy listening to classical music or corporate hymns. It would be more likely of me to turn to a popular Christian radio station than to put in a CD of old people singing older hymns. But when in the presence of covenant renewal service, there is something much more powerful about these hymns. They have beauty and truth. They have bold statements that are not seen in today’s Christian music such as "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners," "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound," "We are God’s People, the chosen of the Lord; Born on His Spirit, established by His word," and "Lift High the Cross," all just to name a few. There are some popular Christian songs today with powerful lyrics, but many of them lack what the hymns so richly have. In enjoy some contemporary Christian such as Casting Crowns and Three Driven Nails, but I don’t much care for a lot of what I hear on popular Christian radio. We must be lyrically and musically sensitive to what we label as Christian music. What if we label some sappy or watered-down ‘inspirational’ message as Christianity? A non-Christian might say, "If that is today’s Christian music, then I don’t want to be a part of today’s Christianity." Once again, music reflects the person and the culture.

But this does not reject bringing contemporary music to God. Someone has to write the music. Sometimes there are some traditional or Reformed churches today that seem scared of presenting any new Christian music. I don’t think this is good. We are to "sing to the Lord a new song" (Psalm 33:3). Of course, reading further in the verse, it says to "play skillfully with a loud noise." There is nothing wrong if the Christian music is loud as long as it is reverent and bold. The same chapter tells us to "Praise Him with the Psaltery and with an instrument of ten strings." Music should reflect the Bible. We are told to "Praise Him with the Psaltery."

I also believe we should be careful in relations to the style of Christian music that is brought out. Rightly or wrongly, some styles of music relate to a sinful culture. It becomes dangerous if Christian music is played in the style that portrays a sinful culture. Such styles may include rap music, hard rock music, etc. It becomes worse when the Christian band or artist dresses like the norm of this style, perhaps with tattoos, excessive body piercings, etc. We should desire to bring all the nations to Christ, but I’m not sure playing their style of music is the best way. We should alter an alternative to their sinful lifestyle found in the hope of Jesus. We should offer community to a self-centered lifestyle, rooting ourselves in the doctrine of the Trinity. Playing to their level is not necessarily the correct way to go.

Also, if someone is a Christian artist, they should make sure the way they live their lives attests to the grace of God. I also do not particularly care for a Christian to assume that any music produced by any Christian must be directly Christian. As a Christian and a musician myself, I do write Christian songs, but I also write secular songs. I try to keep it all to the glory of God and all consistent within the Christian worldview.

So when we hear Christian music, we should ask six basic questions:
1): Does the style of music seem to be influenced by and does it seem to promote a sinful lifestyle?
2): Is the music bold enough lyrically and musically to be declared as Christian music? (Keep in mind if it is declared as Christian music, then it becomes a much stronger representative of Christianity.)
3): Does the music seem to simply mimic the world music for popular gain and attention?
4): Is this music written and played to the full glory of God?
5): Is this music better in the context of corporate worship, or private listening?
6): Does the author or artist of this music live their lives attesting to God's grace?
In my opinion, if the music passes this little "test," then it is good Christian music. I also believe that even if the music does not necessarily pass this test completely, then it should not necessarily be criticized. God may be pleased even with our imperfect attempts to praise Him, if our hearts are in the right place.

Continue to guard what you hear with the Word of God, but also keep in mind how you should interpret God’s Word correctly. One of the next blogs will address this question. Remember the importance of music. It is a major way God moves His people. Therefore, we should be sensitive to our music, but also praising with it. We should lift high our voices, so that we may "Lift High the Cross."

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

God bless His church

October 14, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Politically Correct Interpretation of Law

This past Friday night I saw a few minutes of ABC’s 20/20. In one section, John Stossel told the story of two young boys who were accused of being sexual predators. The young boys went through several months of trials, were put in jail for about six days, and were finally, after a long time, acquitted of the charges. These boys were accused of this because they would go slap some of their female classmates on their butts, and would jump up next to them in a matter that was called "dry humping."

The boys were just twelve and thirteen. The girls were just thirteen. The boys were charged with five counts of felony sex abuse in the first degree. The girls laugh about it now, and do not consider themselves victims. Both the boys and the girls claim it was something that would go around at the school with the kids in that grade. In fact, Friday at their school, was considered "Smack Butt Day." There was no sexual activity involved- just a bunch of silly immature ‘spanking.’

What really got me about this, was that people worry far more about this than the do the real sexual predators today. There are sexual predators who are running scot-free today. The "justice" system of today seems far more worried about convicting eleven year-olds who partake in silly immature games than they seem to worry about thirty year old men who rape thirteen year old girls. If I had my way with the idiots who molest, rape, and perhaps kill innocent people, I’d give them harsh punishment to the fullest extent of the law. Whether it be life in prison, or just some short tough rope and a big tree, I’d show them their guilt, and let them take the rest up with the Almighty.

But instead, we leave this way of thinking into the way of seeing how many nit-picky arrests we can make. This little spanking game that these boys would do is silly and childish. But they did them because are silly children. What do you expect? I would not go slap a random girl on the butt- I would probably get smacked on the face, and rightfully so. But I’m seventeen and more mature than that now.

This is just one example. The law is becoming technical about your every move- and the way we interpret the law has become worse. The way you buy groceries, the way you educate children, the way private organizations pick their members, etc. is being bombarded by technical rules. It takes away your freedom. But so does letting guilty people get off scot-free. When a murder happens, it is about as reasonable today to sew the manufacturers of the gun, other than the killer himself. Or perhaps, if that idea does not work, you could sew the people who made the killer’s favorite video game as a kid. You know, most of these games are about killing someone, or keeping yourself from being killed. And while we’re at it, we might as well make sure no school allows children to play cops and robbers, because it promotes running from the law. Let’s just do anything we can to keep this murderer, rapist, or whatever he or she is, out of jail or capital punishment.

It is time we move away from these ways to the way it is supposed to be. Instead of worrying about the little things that don’t matter, focus on what really matters- our freedom and safety. Instead of going through months on end of trials, let’s get it over with quickly. Not that we rush to conclusions too quickly, but that we get what needs to be done in a timely manner. If the party is not guilty, they do not deserve to go through the stress of months of legal trials. If the party is guilty, they should quickly get their punishment.

But instead, in America we do not see this. It is not as if the law I was not made good enough. It’s that the judges who interpret the law do so in a politically correct way. We don’t see quick and accurate trials to bring justice to the guilty or to protect the innocent. We see a politically correct interpretation of law.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

October 9, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Disagreements Within the Church

The Christian church today is divided in so many ways. This division is bad for the church because it takes away growth in the church, and takes away Christian wisdom. Christians fight over stupid things that do not matter much at all in eternity. It is time that the church becomes more unified.

The great Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, etc. all did not want a divided church. They desired for the Roman Catholic Church at the time to see their evil ways and then allow Christians of different beliefs to openly discuss things of disagreement. However the church at the time did not want to openly discuss these disagreements.

Since then, the church has been dividing through denominations and fights. However many unbelievers see this and avoid the church. We forget about the cross and the empty grave. We forget about heaven and hell, and try to fight over the mysterious relationship of God’s Sovereignty to human free will.

It is time for Christians of many denominations to discuss their disagreements, and seek for a common ground, and seek to learn from each other. Jesus Christ died on a wooden cross to forgive us of all the times in which we have wronged Him. We seem to hate everyone for the simplest of things they have done to wrong us, or for the simplest of church disagreements. This in itself is an insult to Jesus Christ.

Don’t get me wrong. There is such thing as heresy, and there is such thing as justice enforced by man. Furthermore, false doctrine is sinful, and we should desire to help other Christians learn from false doctrines. But everyone is sinful and everyone has flawed conclusions. We can learn from each other.

In today’s world, denominations do have some positive benefits. Baptism, Communion, etc., could not be properly and in the right mindset performed in a church filled with different beliefs of Baptism and Communion. Nor could church government be installed in the right mindset amongst those with totally different conclusions. But we should not hate each other because of slight differences.

Personally, I am Presbyterian, but I do see this problem often within Presbyterian Christianity. Church authoritarianism is wrong and does seem to exist in certain Presbyterian circles. Recently, our Elder and a Law Professor at Samford University, David Smolin, preached a sermon on this church authoritarianism. He made some really good points that needed to be made. We do not have to go through church authorities in order to go to Heaven. Our only mediator between us and God the Father is Jesus Christ. The church is important, and can be helpful, but Jesus Christ is the ultimate mediator.

I enjoy the writings of Jeffrey Myers, Rich Lusk, Peter Leithart, Cornelius Van Til, James Jordan, Gary DeMar, Steve Wilkins, etc. But these writings should be made known outside of their general circle. Furthermore, those of this circle should read these open mindedly and only draw their conclusions based ultimately off of the Bible. It would also be good to read writings of other Christians who may be outside of this circle of beliefs.

But this is not just to Presbyterians, but to every Christian. It is time we openly mindedly reach our conclusions, and allow for any differentiating conclusion to be made in faith in Jesus Christ, and humble reliance upon His sovereign mercy.

What do you think?

God bless the Church

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

October 4, 2007

Ryan Hampton

The Final Word

Just to let you all know, Ryan Hampton has another blog issued for sports. This blog is called The Final Word, and you can find it on the links. Among the topics listed now is the impredictability of college football, and the great games amongst the state of Alabama. Soon, we will be issuing a Top 25 (or perhaps higher) of the college football teams. The Final Word exists to discuss more than just college football, but college football is obviously the top priority now : )

Ryan