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
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
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!
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sheltering
Being homeschooled, I have encountered the stereotype that I have been sheltered. The stereotype would say that many of those homeschooled do not know about the real world, because they have not been in the real world. Just recently, I had a friend who told me that he thought I was being sheltered for not being in public school. I will not mention this particular person by name, because I would not like to make it appear I am publicly criticizing him. I think he meant well, although the rational of the matter is that it is not his business.
I went on to ask him what it was I was sheltered from. The conversation pretty much died after that. I usually avoid such arguments. The question, though, does bring up many more interesting points and questions. One such argument used in against homeschooling, is that for a child to learn about the "real world," he should be bullied. Of course, in this case, we must assume that there is a bully. We should not raise our children under the impression that they should be bully's or that being a bully serves a good purpose in the world. In reality, what we should do is train them up in the way that they should go, fervently grounded in Scripture.
I do not think that this means we should reject anything modern, or secular. Some homeschoolers may do that too much. We should reject sin, and live in accordance with God's grace, which serves as an alternative to sinful nature. I heard one particular homeschool graduating friend of mine, say that she has been sheltered, "From worldly ideologies" such as declaring that "Homosexual is fine" and the world of "drugs and fornication" (paraphrased along those lines). This, again, brings up interesting points. Should the church separate the children from such ideologies completely, or should they allow their children to see them, only to learn to make their own choices, and learn from their mistakes?
I personally believe that there is a fine line in this. We should teach the sinfulness of these false worldly ideologies to our children. This, I believe, being the point of this particular person, is true. However at the same time, we should not over-shelter our children from the fact that these false ideologies are present in the world today. I believe that if we commit this "over-sheltering," one of two things would most likely happen: either the child still hears of these worldly ideologies (given that it is advertised everywhere in the world, and is very easily seen), and thus falls into the temptations and rebels against the parental sheltering; or, the child is so sheltered, that he is unable to give a reasonable defense for the alternative Christian ideologies. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to "Be prepared to give a defense to those who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us." The rationality of the matter is that we would not be able to give a defense if we are clueless to the opposing view.
However, we should be reasonable, so that in teaching our children these worldviews, we teach them as false, to the extent that they are false. We should not defend something that is obviously against Biblical grounds. We should always base any of our thoughts on Biblical teaching. Anything that contradicts Biblical teachings is wrong.
One good example of this would be the popular DaVinci Code novel book and movie series. I believe whole-heartedly that this is based off of false teaching. I never saw this movie, but I could tell from the advertisements that this was wrong. However, I was not against seeing this movie either. One particular family member of whom I have great respect for told me it would be wrong to see it. However, I believe that because of my ignorance to The DaVinci Code, I would not be able to give a reasonable defense for the alternative Christian worldview.
In the public school setting, the teachers are forced to be neutral, which in and of itself is only a special form of being biased. Because of this, many children get conflicting indoctrination. False indoctrination leads to many confusing and conflicting ideologies in children, which is perhaps the greatest sheltering of all- the sheltering of the absolute truth found in the Gospel.
I believe that some people do not homeschool for the right reasons, and I do believe that you can over-shelter children from these false ideologies. A lot of the way children learn, and become adults, is through experiencing tough choices themselves, and learning from their mistakes. Having someone over their shoulders all the time is not good.
But what many people do not realize is that homeschooling is not being trapped in your house all day long learning only from your mother. While being homeschooled, I have been able to take college classes at Jeff State. Many homeschooled students take classes with other homeschooled students. I can honestly say that I don't think most of the homeschooled students I know have a small network of friends available. Some homeschooled students have a greater network of friends than public schooled students, many friends being the friends that will last longer. Many homeschool groups have athletic programs. There is also a near-by band for homeschooled students to partake in concerts, solo & ensemble festivals, and athletic events as a pep-band.
I know that homeschooling does not offer the athletic atmospheres that public schools do. However, I do not think that that means that homeschoolers are any less happy, or that the events are any less fun. I also feel that it is wrong to simply base education off of these extra-curricular activities.
In closing, there is a healthy line, I believe, in the sheltering and lack thereof of children, and, anyone for that matter. In all ways, guard yourself with the Word of God, and if you are a parent, place God's Word upon your children. Be prepared to give a defense for this Truth; learn from your mistakes; do not let anything replace the Truth that is in you.
What do you think?
Pray for our Troops.
God bless.
July 30, 2007
Ryan
I went on to ask him what it was I was sheltered from. The conversation pretty much died after that. I usually avoid such arguments. The question, though, does bring up many more interesting points and questions. One such argument used in against homeschooling, is that for a child to learn about the "real world," he should be bullied. Of course, in this case, we must assume that there is a bully. We should not raise our children under the impression that they should be bully's or that being a bully serves a good purpose in the world. In reality, what we should do is train them up in the way that they should go, fervently grounded in Scripture.
I do not think that this means we should reject anything modern, or secular. Some homeschoolers may do that too much. We should reject sin, and live in accordance with God's grace, which serves as an alternative to sinful nature. I heard one particular homeschool graduating friend of mine, say that she has been sheltered, "From worldly ideologies" such as declaring that "Homosexual is fine" and the world of "drugs and fornication" (paraphrased along those lines). This, again, brings up interesting points. Should the church separate the children from such ideologies completely, or should they allow their children to see them, only to learn to make their own choices, and learn from their mistakes?
I personally believe that there is a fine line in this. We should teach the sinfulness of these false worldly ideologies to our children. This, I believe, being the point of this particular person, is true. However at the same time, we should not over-shelter our children from the fact that these false ideologies are present in the world today. I believe that if we commit this "over-sheltering," one of two things would most likely happen: either the child still hears of these worldly ideologies (given that it is advertised everywhere in the world, and is very easily seen), and thus falls into the temptations and rebels against the parental sheltering; or, the child is so sheltered, that he is unable to give a reasonable defense for the alternative Christian ideologies. 1 Peter 3:15 tells us to "Be prepared to give a defense to those who asks us to give an account for the hope that is in us." The rationality of the matter is that we would not be able to give a defense if we are clueless to the opposing view.
However, we should be reasonable, so that in teaching our children these worldviews, we teach them as false, to the extent that they are false. We should not defend something that is obviously against Biblical grounds. We should always base any of our thoughts on Biblical teaching. Anything that contradicts Biblical teachings is wrong.
One good example of this would be the popular DaVinci Code novel book and movie series. I believe whole-heartedly that this is based off of false teaching. I never saw this movie, but I could tell from the advertisements that this was wrong. However, I was not against seeing this movie either. One particular family member of whom I have great respect for told me it would be wrong to see it. However, I believe that because of my ignorance to The DaVinci Code, I would not be able to give a reasonable defense for the alternative Christian worldview.
In the public school setting, the teachers are forced to be neutral, which in and of itself is only a special form of being biased. Because of this, many children get conflicting indoctrination. False indoctrination leads to many confusing and conflicting ideologies in children, which is perhaps the greatest sheltering of all- the sheltering of the absolute truth found in the Gospel.
I believe that some people do not homeschool for the right reasons, and I do believe that you can over-shelter children from these false ideologies. A lot of the way children learn, and become adults, is through experiencing tough choices themselves, and learning from their mistakes. Having someone over their shoulders all the time is not good.
But what many people do not realize is that homeschooling is not being trapped in your house all day long learning only from your mother. While being homeschooled, I have been able to take college classes at Jeff State. Many homeschooled students take classes with other homeschooled students. I can honestly say that I don't think most of the homeschooled students I know have a small network of friends available. Some homeschooled students have a greater network of friends than public schooled students, many friends being the friends that will last longer. Many homeschool groups have athletic programs. There is also a near-by band for homeschooled students to partake in concerts, solo & ensemble festivals, and athletic events as a pep-band.
I know that homeschooling does not offer the athletic atmospheres that public schools do. However, I do not think that that means that homeschoolers are any less happy, or that the events are any less fun. I also feel that it is wrong to simply base education off of these extra-curricular activities.
In closing, there is a healthy line, I believe, in the sheltering and lack thereof of children, and, anyone for that matter. In all ways, guard yourself with the Word of God, and if you are a parent, place God's Word upon your children. Be prepared to give a defense for this Truth; learn from your mistakes; do not let anything replace the Truth that is in you.
What do you think?
Pray for our Troops.
God bless.
July 30, 2007
Ryan
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The Basement
If you are around this area, then you may familiar with the local church-like phenomena, the basement. The basement holds claims to many claims of one finding Jesus, or coming closer to Him. However the basement also has minor controversy behind it.
However the controversy comes more from within the Christian Church, than outside the Christian Church. Many Christians urge other Christians to "come to the basement one Tuesday night" while others dismiss it as a "cult."
I am the kind of person who tries finding good in things done for the glory of God. I personally have never been to The Basement, and do not have first-hand experience as to what it is like. Generally speaking, I try to accept these sorts of events as good forms of Christian worship. However I also do not assume that any way of worshiping is necessarily one that can bring glory to God. Although I have never been to The Basement, I know plenty of people who have. I have never talked at length to anyone who has, but have heard second and third hand reports of what it is like. Going by the best I can see, I will give you my opinions on The Basement.
First off, I would encourage everyone who attends The Basement to question everything speaker Matt Pitt says with the Word of God. Of course, you should question anything anyone tells you with the Word of God, whether it be your Pastor, teacher, friends, or even parents- not just Matt Pitt. However, God does give some people the responsibility to teach the Word of God to others, and there are people God places in your life to help you in your life. In saying this, do not elevate anyone above the Word of God, nor put them level to the Word of God. However, remember that God has put some people in your life for the purpose of preaching His Word. In growing as a Christian, you should learn discernment on these accounts.
In saying this, I believe that any person who is lifted as a public speaker of the Word of God, should have accountability within the church. Anyone could talk at length about the Word of God, even quoting Scripture. However, having accountability is also important. I do not know of Matt Pitt’s experience. From what I have heard, he has some sort of training. However I am not sure what level of accountability he really has earned. Given the recognition he is receiving locally now, and what could grow out of this area, he and others around him should be careful. You should be careful too. Once again, validate (or deny) anything he, and others, say with the Word of God.
There have been reports that speaker Matt Pitt would often alter the Bible’s wording slightly, or perhaps fail to back his opinion with the Word of God, while still claiming he knows where the Bible would defend his point. There have also been reports that he is improving on these such areas. I hope he is. However this is not all of my concern, questions, or opportunities of praise for this ministry.
I have heard that Matt Pitt has said that the basement is not a church, and that those attending should be in church. I agree, and am glad to hear reports that he says this. I do not feel that what happens at The Basement on Tuesday nights could replace what should happen on Sunday morning. Because of this, I do not hold the basement to the same standards as what I would Sunday morning worship service. It is great to have a mid-week church-like function for teenagers apart from their typical weekly service.
However if the basement puts itself up as a place of corporate worship before God, there are some guidelines that they should follow, ultimately rooted in Scripture. What if the speaker (hypothetically) said, "Let’s praise God by eating dog food!" God would not be pleased with this attitude. The Bible is clear that there should be order in any form of corporate worship. The Bible is also clear, that if there is a place of corporate Christian worship, that it should reflect the how the church universally should be. The church should be distinguished from the world, and should be very serious minded toward the Gospel. In the same way, a corporate worship service to God should not be blended in with the world. I have heard second and third hand of The Basement taking songs by the rapper, Usher, only to change the words into Christian meanings. I do not feel as if this presents the best worship attitude before God Almighty.
I could not point to a place in Scripture and tell you from one specific verse what would be wrong with that scenario. However I could not point to one verse to validate or deny many things done by Christians or hated by Christians. Rap music, generally speaking, rightly or wrongly, has an image that should not want to be held by Christians. Therefore, I feel that it essentially waters down the Gospel to play Christian rap, or to say "I hate all rap except Christian rap."
The same could and often does, in my opinion, go for rock music as well. However soft rock, as opposed to punk-sounding rock, does not have this sort of image. For this, I have nothing against light Christian rock. I believe that one can listen to it, and essentially be brought closer to God. God gave us music to glorify His name. I believe that there are places even in corporate Christian gatherings where such music could be played. It is obvious that many are brought closer to God through the playing of these sorts of songs. However, I also feel that in The Basement, as well as places similar to The Basement, a watered down version of the Gospel is portrayed, often beginning in the music. The Christian theme song of today seems so light compared to what it should be. If the "Christian theme song" (for lack of better terminology) was a classic hymn such as "We are God’s People" or "Holy, Holy, Holy," then we would be much better off as a church worldwide.
One reason many feel that contemporary music is better is because it is more attractive young people and non-Christians. However, it is not good to become like the world in order to attract more people. If people "join" Christianity simply because the music sounds good, and not because of what it means, then they are probably not in it for the right reasons. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a Christian arena attractive to young kids or to non-Christians. However, I have concern when the church tends to blend in with the world.
At the same time, the church should not simply be on the sidelines to the world. Often, the Christian has a tendency to either blend in with the world, or be too far away from the world. We should not be spectators holding signs that say, "Join the club or you’ll die in hell!" We should offer an alternative to the world and sinful lifestyles, found only through Jesus Christ. To do this, we must be distinct, and then act. I feel that The Basement acts, and I commend The Basement for that. However, I also have concerns as to if the way they act is the best way to bring glory to God.
Furthermore, if the basement is a place for teenagers to come in worship, I feel that eventually these kids should grow as a Christian. Our youth today is caught in the middle of American individualism, and American emotionalism. I believe that the children are not attracted by deep theological ideas, but rather, community, acceptance, and their emotions. First and foremost, the church, especially a place such as The Basement, should be there on these accounts. The basement has done just that. They give the children a place where they can come and feel loved despite what their past is, and a place that will fire the emotions in a person. However, after this, the church should respond to teaching theology, so that the Christian may grow. I am not sure if The Basement is doing this. Emotionalism should not be the only thing that a church answers to or teaches.
It is hard to both adhere to the emotions of people, and consistently teach their minds. However they can go together. What often happens in a sinful world, is either you attract a lot of people, who seem to grow, but long-term do not grow much, or, rather, a place that will attract very few people, but whose members grow long-term in their relationship with Christ. Basically, the question is quantity or quality? For the strengthening of the church as a whole, both are needed, and both can go together. It is just often hard to find that ground. Once again, as a growing Christian, you should grow in your discernment on these accounts.
So in closing, I give my blessings to The Basement for all good that they have done, and hope to see this grow, if indeed this is a service to God. However I do not feel that any place that has the supposed intent on worshipping God necessarily does it in the correct way. Furthermore, if giving glory to God was measured purely on attendance or earthly success, then any church on television would be a wonderful glory to God. However many Pastors on television wind up laughing their way to the bank. Also, though, God in His infinite wisdom can use people who are even flawed in themselves. Even if The Basement does do things that is not right in God’s sight, or if Matt Pitt himself is hypocritical, God is still infinite, and works even in ways that may not seem good at first. God could take an apparent curse and turn it into a blessing.
If The Basement has led one person to Christ, then it has served some good purpose to God’s kingdom. Of course, this could either be because the people of The Basement have set out to give glory to God, and through God’s grace, God’s kingdom grew, or because God worked through flawed people with different intentions. If you attend The Basement, then I encourage you to still attend weekly service elsewhere. Going to The Basement may not be a bad thing, but it can not replace what should happen on Sunday mornings. Continue to base all your thoughts on the Word of God, and on your faith. Continue to lift high the cross, so that the world may know Jesus Christ is God.
You may want to look at the following blog on The Basement written by Cliff Prosser:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130099894&blogID=283895140
You may also want to read the other blog I posted just before this on true, weekly, Christian corporate worship (dealing with the traditional Sunday service).
Some of what I touched on in this blog is found in those two blogs. Some of the comments in Cliff Prosser’s blog bring up good points.
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I have plenty to write about. I will try to post a blog on the election. I will also try to post a blog on what government really is, and why God gives us government. I would also like to post a blog on the popular book and movie series, Harry Potter. I saw one of the movies recently, whereas before that, I had not watched any of the movies, nor read any of the books. I know that this is controversial amongst Christians, so I will give you my ten cents worth on the popular book/movie series. I will probably post a couple of personal blogs, as well as some sort of devotional, moral-social idea, etc. Thank you!
Ryan
However the controversy comes more from within the Christian Church, than outside the Christian Church. Many Christians urge other Christians to "come to the basement one Tuesday night" while others dismiss it as a "cult."
I am the kind of person who tries finding good in things done for the glory of God. I personally have never been to The Basement, and do not have first-hand experience as to what it is like. Generally speaking, I try to accept these sorts of events as good forms of Christian worship. However I also do not assume that any way of worshiping is necessarily one that can bring glory to God. Although I have never been to The Basement, I know plenty of people who have. I have never talked at length to anyone who has, but have heard second and third hand reports of what it is like. Going by the best I can see, I will give you my opinions on The Basement.
First off, I would encourage everyone who attends The Basement to question everything speaker Matt Pitt says with the Word of God. Of course, you should question anything anyone tells you with the Word of God, whether it be your Pastor, teacher, friends, or even parents- not just Matt Pitt. However, God does give some people the responsibility to teach the Word of God to others, and there are people God places in your life to help you in your life. In saying this, do not elevate anyone above the Word of God, nor put them level to the Word of God. However, remember that God has put some people in your life for the purpose of preaching His Word. In growing as a Christian, you should learn discernment on these accounts.
In saying this, I believe that any person who is lifted as a public speaker of the Word of God, should have accountability within the church. Anyone could talk at length about the Word of God, even quoting Scripture. However, having accountability is also important. I do not know of Matt Pitt’s experience. From what I have heard, he has some sort of training. However I am not sure what level of accountability he really has earned. Given the recognition he is receiving locally now, and what could grow out of this area, he and others around him should be careful. You should be careful too. Once again, validate (or deny) anything he, and others, say with the Word of God.
There have been reports that speaker Matt Pitt would often alter the Bible’s wording slightly, or perhaps fail to back his opinion with the Word of God, while still claiming he knows where the Bible would defend his point. There have also been reports that he is improving on these such areas. I hope he is. However this is not all of my concern, questions, or opportunities of praise for this ministry.
I have heard that Matt Pitt has said that the basement is not a church, and that those attending should be in church. I agree, and am glad to hear reports that he says this. I do not feel that what happens at The Basement on Tuesday nights could replace what should happen on Sunday morning. Because of this, I do not hold the basement to the same standards as what I would Sunday morning worship service. It is great to have a mid-week church-like function for teenagers apart from their typical weekly service.
However if the basement puts itself up as a place of corporate worship before God, there are some guidelines that they should follow, ultimately rooted in Scripture. What if the speaker (hypothetically) said, "Let’s praise God by eating dog food!" God would not be pleased with this attitude. The Bible is clear that there should be order in any form of corporate worship. The Bible is also clear, that if there is a place of corporate Christian worship, that it should reflect the how the church universally should be. The church should be distinguished from the world, and should be very serious minded toward the Gospel. In the same way, a corporate worship service to God should not be blended in with the world. I have heard second and third hand of The Basement taking songs by the rapper, Usher, only to change the words into Christian meanings. I do not feel as if this presents the best worship attitude before God Almighty.
I could not point to a place in Scripture and tell you from one specific verse what would be wrong with that scenario. However I could not point to one verse to validate or deny many things done by Christians or hated by Christians. Rap music, generally speaking, rightly or wrongly, has an image that should not want to be held by Christians. Therefore, I feel that it essentially waters down the Gospel to play Christian rap, or to say "I hate all rap except Christian rap."
The same could and often does, in my opinion, go for rock music as well. However soft rock, as opposed to punk-sounding rock, does not have this sort of image. For this, I have nothing against light Christian rock. I believe that one can listen to it, and essentially be brought closer to God. God gave us music to glorify His name. I believe that there are places even in corporate Christian gatherings where such music could be played. It is obvious that many are brought closer to God through the playing of these sorts of songs. However, I also feel that in The Basement, as well as places similar to The Basement, a watered down version of the Gospel is portrayed, often beginning in the music. The Christian theme song of today seems so light compared to what it should be. If the "Christian theme song" (for lack of better terminology) was a classic hymn such as "We are God’s People" or "Holy, Holy, Holy," then we would be much better off as a church worldwide.
One reason many feel that contemporary music is better is because it is more attractive young people and non-Christians. However, it is not good to become like the world in order to attract more people. If people "join" Christianity simply because the music sounds good, and not because of what it means, then they are probably not in it for the right reasons. There is nothing wrong with trying to make a Christian arena attractive to young kids or to non-Christians. However, I have concern when the church tends to blend in with the world.
At the same time, the church should not simply be on the sidelines to the world. Often, the Christian has a tendency to either blend in with the world, or be too far away from the world. We should not be spectators holding signs that say, "Join the club or you’ll die in hell!" We should offer an alternative to the world and sinful lifestyles, found only through Jesus Christ. To do this, we must be distinct, and then act. I feel that The Basement acts, and I commend The Basement for that. However, I also have concerns as to if the way they act is the best way to bring glory to God.
Furthermore, if the basement is a place for teenagers to come in worship, I feel that eventually these kids should grow as a Christian. Our youth today is caught in the middle of American individualism, and American emotionalism. I believe that the children are not attracted by deep theological ideas, but rather, community, acceptance, and their emotions. First and foremost, the church, especially a place such as The Basement, should be there on these accounts. The basement has done just that. They give the children a place where they can come and feel loved despite what their past is, and a place that will fire the emotions in a person. However, after this, the church should respond to teaching theology, so that the Christian may grow. I am not sure if The Basement is doing this. Emotionalism should not be the only thing that a church answers to or teaches.
It is hard to both adhere to the emotions of people, and consistently teach their minds. However they can go together. What often happens in a sinful world, is either you attract a lot of people, who seem to grow, but long-term do not grow much, or, rather, a place that will attract very few people, but whose members grow long-term in their relationship with Christ. Basically, the question is quantity or quality? For the strengthening of the church as a whole, both are needed, and both can go together. It is just often hard to find that ground. Once again, as a growing Christian, you should grow in your discernment on these accounts.
So in closing, I give my blessings to The Basement for all good that they have done, and hope to see this grow, if indeed this is a service to God. However I do not feel that any place that has the supposed intent on worshipping God necessarily does it in the correct way. Furthermore, if giving glory to God was measured purely on attendance or earthly success, then any church on television would be a wonderful glory to God. However many Pastors on television wind up laughing their way to the bank. Also, though, God in His infinite wisdom can use people who are even flawed in themselves. Even if The Basement does do things that is not right in God’s sight, or if Matt Pitt himself is hypocritical, God is still infinite, and works even in ways that may not seem good at first. God could take an apparent curse and turn it into a blessing.
If The Basement has led one person to Christ, then it has served some good purpose to God’s kingdom. Of course, this could either be because the people of The Basement have set out to give glory to God, and through God’s grace, God’s kingdom grew, or because God worked through flawed people with different intentions. If you attend The Basement, then I encourage you to still attend weekly service elsewhere. Going to The Basement may not be a bad thing, but it can not replace what should happen on Sunday mornings. Continue to base all your thoughts on the Word of God, and on your faith. Continue to lift high the cross, so that the world may know Jesus Christ is God.
You may want to look at the following blog on The Basement written by Cliff Prosser:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=130099894&blogID=283895140
You may also want to read the other blog I posted just before this on true, weekly, Christian corporate worship (dealing with the traditional Sunday service).
Some of what I touched on in this blog is found in those two blogs. Some of the comments in Cliff Prosser’s blog bring up good points.
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I have plenty to write about. I will try to post a blog on the election. I will also try to post a blog on what government really is, and why God gives us government. I would also like to post a blog on the popular book and movie series, Harry Potter. I saw one of the movies recently, whereas before that, I had not watched any of the movies, nor read any of the books. I know that this is controversial amongst Christians, so I will give you my ten cents worth on the popular book/movie series. I will probably post a couple of personal blogs, as well as some sort of devotional, moral-social idea, etc. Thank you!
Ryan
Monday, July 23, 2007
True Weekly Christian Corporate Worship
You may recall that a while back I wrote a blog on corporate, Christian worship. Today, I desire to give a follow-up on that blog, perhaps being a little more in-depth, and hopefully a little more orderly with my writing.
The term "worship" is so universal, and organizing a blog on worship, as a whole, is actually hard to do. Where do you start? How in depth do you go? Where do you end? Worship could simply mean the glorifying of the name of God, and in the scope of different religions, any God. I want this blog to be about the Christian, weekly, corporate worship service, traditionally held on Sunday mornings. This is not the only way to bring glory to God, but I believe that it is essential to Christian living, and should, at some length, be discussed.
First off, I believe that weekly, corporate worship is desired by God. I believe it is good for good Christian growth. I also believe that a local church is able to help the spread of the Gospel. However I feel that this worship service is more than just that, and there are more reasons than just these to engage in corporate worship.
The early Christians were quick to engage in corporate worship, and from what we see of the Bible, the Bible calls this good, and even gives certain "rules" to follow in the worship (there is not actual set of rules and regulations, but the Bible does give some hints to the way our order of worship should be).
We also see something special about Sunday in Scripture, as if it is the Lord’s day. Obviously, everyday should be His day, but Sunday is perhaps different, to some degree. This leaves me believing that God desires the gathering of His people to have some form of communion with Him, at the corporate level, on this day.
Even deeper, we see throughout the Old Testament, the concealing of New Testament worship. In the Old Testament, God worked through His people with certain covenants. There was the covenant of marriage between Adam and Eve. There was the covenant with Noah that God made. There was the covenant with Moses, David, etc. They all point to Jesus Christ, ultimately, and the new order of things, which mirror the old order.
It seems fitting for the corporate Sunday morning service to be the fulfillment of these covenants; to be our covenant renewal service to God, to remember the covenant He has with us- the acceptance of His grace leads to eternal life. The traditional order of corporate worship services is even modeled similarly after the Old Testament covenants, which all have similar models themselves.
Looking at God’s covenants He has made, we see five basic steps in the order of His covenant. First, God takes hold. Secondly, God separates, and makes something new. He makes all things new. The third step in His covenant, is that God speaks. After that, God lays signs to remember His covenant. The fifth, and final step, is that God prepares for the future.
But don’t just take my word for it. Look at Scripture, and see how this five-step pattern is repeated through God’s covenants. Let’s first consider the covenant of creation, which is centered by God’s relation to Adam:
First, God takes hold of the ground, specifically the dust, in which He created. Before this, God had full sovereignty of the world, but this, now the sixth and final day of creation, God creates man. Genesis 1:4 tells us that He took hold of the ground in order to form His creation. Secondly, this dust that God took hold of, was separated and made new. God took a certain amount of it to form Adam. God breathed the breath of life in this dust, forming Adam. Thirdly, God spoke to this new creature. God tells Adam who God is and who Adam is, and their respective roles. God is Lord over all creation, but has given Adam authority over the animals. God tells Adam to serve and guard the garden. After this, God gives signs of His covenant. God gives Adam the Tree of Life, but tells Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God gives Adam real and physical signs of the covenant. Finally, God prepares for the future, by giving Adam a bride, Eve, who could be a helper to Adam, as well as continue the human race, and God’s kingdom.
This was the first covenant. Now let’s continue to look at how other covenants follow this pattern. Let us consider the covenant of marriage between Adam and Eve, that God initiated:
First, God took hold of Adam causing Him to fall into a deep, death-like sleep. Next, God separates a rib from Adam’s body in order to make something new, Eve. Third, God speaks to Adam and Eve, telling them of their respective roles. Adam has the authority over Eve as husband, and Eve must submit to Adam. However, Adam must also protect Eve, and set the example, and treat Eve right, by loving her and cherishing her. God also tells of the joyous aspect of this marriage, that now Adam has "A helper comparable to Him," which He was missing before hand. God gives a physical sign to remember this covenant, sex. The mistreatment of this sign is the degrading of marriage, whether is be using it improperly, or even the failure to use it when it should be (marriage). Finally, God prepares for the future by promising that through the usage of this physical sign, other men and women will come, and marry. The human race will continue. This covenant is still used today, only illustrating the ultimate marriage between Christ and the church.
I can not go through every covenant on such a simply blog, but to make this even more clear, I will give one more example. Let us consider the covenant God made with Noah:
God graciously takes hold of Noah, and his family. God tells Noah what he wants done. He finds "favor in the eyes of Yahweh." God then separates Noah and his family from the world, in order to form a new creation. Noah would be like a new Adam, where his family would start the whole world over. Next, God speaks to Noah, telling him what authority he now has, as beginning the world over. There is a slight, new way of life. God commands Noah and his family to "be fruitful and multiply." After this, God remember His covenant with Noah by giving signs of His covenant. God gives Noah a new sacrificial system to follow, and God also shows Noah a rainbow, which should remind Noah that God never again would flood the world. Finally, God prepares for the future by promising Noah that He never would again flood the world.
The same pattern is seen in the covenant with David, Abraham, Moses, and so forth. For the sake of the length of this blog, it will not be mentioned. You can see the examples from the previous covenants mentioned. The same pattern can be found in many traditional Sunday services, although it is not found real often in many American churches today. Consider this kind of service:
God takes hold of His people, calling them into worship. The people respond by coming boldly and firmly into God’s presence, giving Him adoration and glory. Secondly, God separates us from the world and from our sin, so that we may be forgiven, and made new. After this, we receive Scripture readings and the sermon, where God speaks to us (this is not to say that the preacher is infallible, but the Word of God). After this, we give our tithes and offerings and partake in the Lord’s supper, where God remembers His covenant through physical signs. Then, God prepares for the future when we receive a benediction to "go" in the world, in the peace of Jesus Christ.
In the Old Testament, God’s signs were the sacrificial system and circumsision. Now, we have the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Jesus gave us the Lord’s Supper in what is often called, "The Last Supper." Jesus gave us Baptism when He was baptized by John the Baptist. Colossians 2: 11-13 reads, "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism, in Him which you also were raised with Him though faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him having forgiven you all trespasses,.." This shows that Baptism is the fulfilling of circumcision. At the Lord’s Supper, Jesus told His disciples to "Do this in remembrence of me."
All of this is a picture of the ultimate covenant, where Jesus comes, God’s people are taken from the world, to be made new through Jesus, we are given Baptism and the Lord’s Supper instead of circumcision and animal sacrifices, and God prepares the way by His people setting up churches, ordaining Pastors, Elders, and electing deacons, and obeying the Great Commission. Now these churches should meet to renew their covenant with God, and in all ways, give Him praise and glory.
Also, please remember that this structure is written on the standpoint of weekly Christian corporate worship, not any Christian gathering. I do think that there should be order and structure to any Christian gathering, but some may not serve the purpose that Sunday morning service serves. Sometimes there may be Bible studies, local praise and worship gatherings, or even church activities just for fun. All of these have their place, but can not replace what should happen on Sunday morning services.
Sunday service, in and of itself, is not merely evangelism. In and of itself, it is not merely experience, where one’s personal emotions are lifted. It is not education, in and of itself. It is not merely a social gathering either. Ultimately, is includes all of these, but just calling this worship service merely "experience," "education," or "evangelism" is not true. However, it is much more than merely any one of these in specific. I feel that often some churches tend to break it down to one of these. Some churches I see focus more on the "personal emotions" while I see others focusing too much on the "education" part of the service. It is really all of these, in a much more powerful way than many other church activities.
I think that even beyond all the covenantal theologies, though, that worship can be basically systemized, even true weekly, Christian, corporate worship. I do think that God can here worship that may not be completely theologically accurate, but is done with a fearful heart, that thus, should be learning. When you worship, give God your best worship. Do not be Cain, and give God only part of yourself, only wanting to do things your way. Be Abel: living for God, and always wanting to give Him your all in worship. I also believe that weekly corporate Christian worship is essential, and that it should not just be considered "extra" or "icing on the cake" to Christian living. In all ways, worship God in spirit and in truth, and continue to study God’s word, that your worship to God will be beneficial to God’s Kingdom, and more and more pleasing in God’s sight.
The term "worship" is so universal, and organizing a blog on worship, as a whole, is actually hard to do. Where do you start? How in depth do you go? Where do you end? Worship could simply mean the glorifying of the name of God, and in the scope of different religions, any God. I want this blog to be about the Christian, weekly, corporate worship service, traditionally held on Sunday mornings. This is not the only way to bring glory to God, but I believe that it is essential to Christian living, and should, at some length, be discussed.
First off, I believe that weekly, corporate worship is desired by God. I believe it is good for good Christian growth. I also believe that a local church is able to help the spread of the Gospel. However I feel that this worship service is more than just that, and there are more reasons than just these to engage in corporate worship.
The early Christians were quick to engage in corporate worship, and from what we see of the Bible, the Bible calls this good, and even gives certain "rules" to follow in the worship (there is not actual set of rules and regulations, but the Bible does give some hints to the way our order of worship should be).
We also see something special about Sunday in Scripture, as if it is the Lord’s day. Obviously, everyday should be His day, but Sunday is perhaps different, to some degree. This leaves me believing that God desires the gathering of His people to have some form of communion with Him, at the corporate level, on this day.
Even deeper, we see throughout the Old Testament, the concealing of New Testament worship. In the Old Testament, God worked through His people with certain covenants. There was the covenant of marriage between Adam and Eve. There was the covenant with Noah that God made. There was the covenant with Moses, David, etc. They all point to Jesus Christ, ultimately, and the new order of things, which mirror the old order.
It seems fitting for the corporate Sunday morning service to be the fulfillment of these covenants; to be our covenant renewal service to God, to remember the covenant He has with us- the acceptance of His grace leads to eternal life. The traditional order of corporate worship services is even modeled similarly after the Old Testament covenants, which all have similar models themselves.
Looking at God’s covenants He has made, we see five basic steps in the order of His covenant. First, God takes hold. Secondly, God separates, and makes something new. He makes all things new. The third step in His covenant, is that God speaks. After that, God lays signs to remember His covenant. The fifth, and final step, is that God prepares for the future.
But don’t just take my word for it. Look at Scripture, and see how this five-step pattern is repeated through God’s covenants. Let’s first consider the covenant of creation, which is centered by God’s relation to Adam:
First, God takes hold of the ground, specifically the dust, in which He created. Before this, God had full sovereignty of the world, but this, now the sixth and final day of creation, God creates man. Genesis 1:4 tells us that He took hold of the ground in order to form His creation. Secondly, this dust that God took hold of, was separated and made new. God took a certain amount of it to form Adam. God breathed the breath of life in this dust, forming Adam. Thirdly, God spoke to this new creature. God tells Adam who God is and who Adam is, and their respective roles. God is Lord over all creation, but has given Adam authority over the animals. God tells Adam to serve and guard the garden. After this, God gives signs of His covenant. God gives Adam the Tree of Life, but tells Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God gives Adam real and physical signs of the covenant. Finally, God prepares for the future, by giving Adam a bride, Eve, who could be a helper to Adam, as well as continue the human race, and God’s kingdom.
This was the first covenant. Now let’s continue to look at how other covenants follow this pattern. Let us consider the covenant of marriage between Adam and Eve, that God initiated:
First, God took hold of Adam causing Him to fall into a deep, death-like sleep. Next, God separates a rib from Adam’s body in order to make something new, Eve. Third, God speaks to Adam and Eve, telling them of their respective roles. Adam has the authority over Eve as husband, and Eve must submit to Adam. However, Adam must also protect Eve, and set the example, and treat Eve right, by loving her and cherishing her. God also tells of the joyous aspect of this marriage, that now Adam has "A helper comparable to Him," which He was missing before hand. God gives a physical sign to remember this covenant, sex. The mistreatment of this sign is the degrading of marriage, whether is be using it improperly, or even the failure to use it when it should be (marriage). Finally, God prepares for the future by promising that through the usage of this physical sign, other men and women will come, and marry. The human race will continue. This covenant is still used today, only illustrating the ultimate marriage between Christ and the church.
I can not go through every covenant on such a simply blog, but to make this even more clear, I will give one more example. Let us consider the covenant God made with Noah:
God graciously takes hold of Noah, and his family. God tells Noah what he wants done. He finds "favor in the eyes of Yahweh." God then separates Noah and his family from the world, in order to form a new creation. Noah would be like a new Adam, where his family would start the whole world over. Next, God speaks to Noah, telling him what authority he now has, as beginning the world over. There is a slight, new way of life. God commands Noah and his family to "be fruitful and multiply." After this, God remember His covenant with Noah by giving signs of His covenant. God gives Noah a new sacrificial system to follow, and God also shows Noah a rainbow, which should remind Noah that God never again would flood the world. Finally, God prepares for the future by promising Noah that He never would again flood the world.
The same pattern is seen in the covenant with David, Abraham, Moses, and so forth. For the sake of the length of this blog, it will not be mentioned. You can see the examples from the previous covenants mentioned. The same pattern can be found in many traditional Sunday services, although it is not found real often in many American churches today. Consider this kind of service:
God takes hold of His people, calling them into worship. The people respond by coming boldly and firmly into God’s presence, giving Him adoration and glory. Secondly, God separates us from the world and from our sin, so that we may be forgiven, and made new. After this, we receive Scripture readings and the sermon, where God speaks to us (this is not to say that the preacher is infallible, but the Word of God). After this, we give our tithes and offerings and partake in the Lord’s supper, where God remembers His covenant through physical signs. Then, God prepares for the future when we receive a benediction to "go" in the world, in the peace of Jesus Christ.
In the Old Testament, God’s signs were the sacrificial system and circumsision. Now, we have the Lord’s Supper and Baptism. Jesus gave us the Lord’s Supper in what is often called, "The Last Supper." Jesus gave us Baptism when He was baptized by John the Baptist. Colossians 2: 11-13 reads, "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in Baptism, in Him which you also were raised with Him though faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him having forgiven you all trespasses,.." This shows that Baptism is the fulfilling of circumcision. At the Lord’s Supper, Jesus told His disciples to "Do this in remembrence of me."
All of this is a picture of the ultimate covenant, where Jesus comes, God’s people are taken from the world, to be made new through Jesus, we are given Baptism and the Lord’s Supper instead of circumcision and animal sacrifices, and God prepares the way by His people setting up churches, ordaining Pastors, Elders, and electing deacons, and obeying the Great Commission. Now these churches should meet to renew their covenant with God, and in all ways, give Him praise and glory.
Also, please remember that this structure is written on the standpoint of weekly Christian corporate worship, not any Christian gathering. I do think that there should be order and structure to any Christian gathering, but some may not serve the purpose that Sunday morning service serves. Sometimes there may be Bible studies, local praise and worship gatherings, or even church activities just for fun. All of these have their place, but can not replace what should happen on Sunday morning services.
Sunday service, in and of itself, is not merely evangelism. In and of itself, it is not merely experience, where one’s personal emotions are lifted. It is not education, in and of itself. It is not merely a social gathering either. Ultimately, is includes all of these, but just calling this worship service merely "experience," "education," or "evangelism" is not true. However, it is much more than merely any one of these in specific. I feel that often some churches tend to break it down to one of these. Some churches I see focus more on the "personal emotions" while I see others focusing too much on the "education" part of the service. It is really all of these, in a much more powerful way than many other church activities.
I think that even beyond all the covenantal theologies, though, that worship can be basically systemized, even true weekly, Christian, corporate worship. I do think that God can here worship that may not be completely theologically accurate, but is done with a fearful heart, that thus, should be learning. When you worship, give God your best worship. Do not be Cain, and give God only part of yourself, only wanting to do things your way. Be Abel: living for God, and always wanting to give Him your all in worship. I also believe that weekly corporate Christian worship is essential, and that it should not just be considered "extra" or "icing on the cake" to Christian living. In all ways, worship God in spirit and in truth, and continue to study God’s word, that your worship to God will be beneficial to God’s Kingdom, and more and more pleasing in God’s sight.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Stupid in America
I believe whole-heartedly that America is one of the greatest nations in the world. We are a nation of freedom, liberty, and power. We are a nation whose people are friendly, kind, and loving, and are not afraid to defend their American liberties. We are a nation of pride, love, as well as great, rich, and special history.
However I also feel that America has its problems. I fear that the people are often ignorant to this great, rich, and special history it has. Americans seem so ignorant to history- even to their own national history. America seems ignorant to many other areas as well. America is perhaps the richest nation in the world, but according to international tests, not the smartest. Rather, America is simply "mediocre."
Even watching Miss America, where the contestants should be some of the brightest young women in America, I feel that there is a certain amount of ignorance that the contestants have to current events. What makes it worse is the fact that they do not realize their ignorance. I do grant that some of the questions asked would have been hard to answer in any way other than one that was politically correct, but the ignorance on both the judges and the contestants could be seen. Miss Georgia said that No Child Left Behind was "very near to her heart," and from my own state, Miss Alabama, seemed to show favor towards a stronger global government in worldwide problems. Many people seem to use the logic that if there is a problem, then the government is here to fix it. This is simply not good logic, and what makes it worse, is many people look to either their emotions or to the media to tell them what the problems are.
The average American is clueless on many current issues, much of American history, or why they believe what they believe, whether it be religion, politics, etc. Many Americans do not know how the electoral college works. Many Americans do not really know the definitions of monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, republican, confederacy, etc. Many Americans simply assume that America is a Democracy, although they are not sure why. Furthermore, in all reality, America is far from a pure Democracy. Many Americans do not know much at all about the "American Civil War" or its causes behind it, and the effects of it. They simply assume it was a war fought over slavery. Many Americans do not know of any of the early compromises our founding fathers made, such as the three-fifths compromise, or any of the compromises on elections. Americans assume that all of our elections were designed to be Democratic votes by the people, but that is really not the case. Many Americans assume that our government is here to provide for us, whether it be our housing, clothing, or education. Many Americans do not know what purpose government is here for.
Even on a more serious side, many Americans do not know why they believe what they believe in regards to their religion. The typical American says what their religion is, but would be clueless when it comes to defending their faith. Many Christians don’t know the books of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or the meaning of much of the symbolism we see in the Bible. American individualism and American emotionalism has swept through the minds of our youth, leaving many to falsely reject religion, or claim religion in a watered-down defenseless way. This is very dangerous. It has become obvious that America, whether it comes to politics, history, religion, etc., is as a nation clueless.
In perhaps his most controversial television special ever, Stupid in America, which aired on 20/20, John Stossel blames this ignorance not so much on the children or parents, but on the government and teachers unions. Stossel claims that it is sticking children in a government monopolized education, that answers primarily to politicians and teacher’s unions, is the cause for such ignorance.
Although I do not really agree with Stossel on everything, I feel that he makes many points that many Americans are scared to admit, or too ignorant to realize. Liberals consider him a right wing fraud, while conservatives consider him one of the most liberal in the liberal media. But Stossel is neither a conservative or a liberal, but rather a libertarian, a word that many Americans do not know the meaning of, not that they would know much more the real definitions of ‘‘conservative’’ and ‘‘liberal.’’ The show was politically motivated and politically incorrect, but many Americans would not hear him out. Some things Stossel stands for I do not completely agree with, but whether it be his articles, television specials, or books, he actually defends his points, and shows he knows why he believes what he believes. Many times, he is right.
Many Americans think that because there are problems in the public school system, that a higher government with more government spending would be the key. However statistics and common sense tell you that that is not the case. Our founding fathers would be devastated to see our American Government today, with the way the Federal Government has control on the free market and education.
But it must start with the people, not the government. Care about your vote, or your no vote. Care about your government, nation, and education for yourself, or if you’re a parent, for your child. It is time that we take initiative, and help make America a better nation than what it already is. It would be a shame to see this wonderful nation fall apart because of its people’s own ignorance.
Thanks you.
What do you think?
God bless America
Ryan
However I also feel that America has its problems. I fear that the people are often ignorant to this great, rich, and special history it has. Americans seem so ignorant to history- even to their own national history. America seems ignorant to many other areas as well. America is perhaps the richest nation in the world, but according to international tests, not the smartest. Rather, America is simply "mediocre."
Even watching Miss America, where the contestants should be some of the brightest young women in America, I feel that there is a certain amount of ignorance that the contestants have to current events. What makes it worse is the fact that they do not realize their ignorance. I do grant that some of the questions asked would have been hard to answer in any way other than one that was politically correct, but the ignorance on both the judges and the contestants could be seen. Miss Georgia said that No Child Left Behind was "very near to her heart," and from my own state, Miss Alabama, seemed to show favor towards a stronger global government in worldwide problems. Many people seem to use the logic that if there is a problem, then the government is here to fix it. This is simply not good logic, and what makes it worse, is many people look to either their emotions or to the media to tell them what the problems are.
The average American is clueless on many current issues, much of American history, or why they believe what they believe, whether it be religion, politics, etc. Many Americans do not know how the electoral college works. Many Americans do not really know the definitions of monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, republican, confederacy, etc. Many Americans simply assume that America is a Democracy, although they are not sure why. Furthermore, in all reality, America is far from a pure Democracy. Many Americans do not know much at all about the "American Civil War" or its causes behind it, and the effects of it. They simply assume it was a war fought over slavery. Many Americans do not know of any of the early compromises our founding fathers made, such as the three-fifths compromise, or any of the compromises on elections. Americans assume that all of our elections were designed to be Democratic votes by the people, but that is really not the case. Many Americans assume that our government is here to provide for us, whether it be our housing, clothing, or education. Many Americans do not know what purpose government is here for.
Even on a more serious side, many Americans do not know why they believe what they believe in regards to their religion. The typical American says what their religion is, but would be clueless when it comes to defending their faith. Many Christians don’t know the books of the Bible, the Ten Commandments, or the meaning of much of the symbolism we see in the Bible. American individualism and American emotionalism has swept through the minds of our youth, leaving many to falsely reject religion, or claim religion in a watered-down defenseless way. This is very dangerous. It has become obvious that America, whether it comes to politics, history, religion, etc., is as a nation clueless.
In perhaps his most controversial television special ever, Stupid in America, which aired on 20/20, John Stossel blames this ignorance not so much on the children or parents, but on the government and teachers unions. Stossel claims that it is sticking children in a government monopolized education, that answers primarily to politicians and teacher’s unions, is the cause for such ignorance.
Although I do not really agree with Stossel on everything, I feel that he makes many points that many Americans are scared to admit, or too ignorant to realize. Liberals consider him a right wing fraud, while conservatives consider him one of the most liberal in the liberal media. But Stossel is neither a conservative or a liberal, but rather a libertarian, a word that many Americans do not know the meaning of, not that they would know much more the real definitions of ‘‘conservative’’ and ‘‘liberal.’’ The show was politically motivated and politically incorrect, but many Americans would not hear him out. Some things Stossel stands for I do not completely agree with, but whether it be his articles, television specials, or books, he actually defends his points, and shows he knows why he believes what he believes. Many times, he is right.
Many Americans think that because there are problems in the public school system, that a higher government with more government spending would be the key. However statistics and common sense tell you that that is not the case. Our founding fathers would be devastated to see our American Government today, with the way the Federal Government has control on the free market and education.
But it must start with the people, not the government. Care about your vote, or your no vote. Care about your government, nation, and education for yourself, or if you’re a parent, for your child. It is time that we take initiative, and help make America a better nation than what it already is. It would be a shame to see this wonderful nation fall apart because of its people’s own ignorance.
Thanks you.
What do you think?
God bless America
Ryan
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Branson, Missouri
Just here recently me and my family, including some of the extended family, as well as some family friends took a trip to Branson, Missouri. I thought I would give you some of my thoughts on our trip, and the place itself.
Although I would not like to live there, I enjoyed the trip. It was a long ride there, and a long ride back, but it was worth it. We had a good time at the white water nearby, Celebration City, and the two shows that we went to.
The lines for the rides at the parks were shorter, the people at the parks were nicer than those at local places here such as Alabama Adventure, and the place looked cleaner. The shows were family-oriented, but that did not compromise the fun people could have. All in all, it was a good trip.
But even beyond all that, it is good to be back. Here, the traffic is not always bumper-to-bumper, the people know how to drive better, and most of all, this is home. For the most part, people were nice there, but I still feel that 'Southern hospitality' is more alive here. It seemed people would not wave back at you there, where as here, they do. Alabama, to live, is good enough for me.
But we did have a good time, and some good memories. The van would not start when we were about to leave on the trip. It took us about two hours longer to get there than we had thought it would. We got to inner-tube in one of the prettiest lakes in the nation. The pizza seemed foreign to us, but it was still pretty good. We got to see Barney Fyffe! Well, an impersinator, of course. We rode some great rides at the parks. I got to show off my incredible singing skills singing the words "Rock-n-roll" to the song "Old Time Rock-n-Roll." We saw "The Duttons" who have preformed on the NBC t.v. show, "America's Got Talent." There were probably more memories that I can't think of right now as well.
So all in all, it was a good trip, and a place that I would encourage you to travel to one day if your time and pocket-book permits you. I am glad to be back, but I am thankful for the time I had there. Hope all of your travels are as blessed as mine!
Ryan
Although I would not like to live there, I enjoyed the trip. It was a long ride there, and a long ride back, but it was worth it. We had a good time at the white water nearby, Celebration City, and the two shows that we went to.
The lines for the rides at the parks were shorter, the people at the parks were nicer than those at local places here such as Alabama Adventure, and the place looked cleaner. The shows were family-oriented, but that did not compromise the fun people could have. All in all, it was a good trip.
But even beyond all that, it is good to be back. Here, the traffic is not always bumper-to-bumper, the people know how to drive better, and most of all, this is home. For the most part, people were nice there, but I still feel that 'Southern hospitality' is more alive here. It seemed people would not wave back at you there, where as here, they do. Alabama, to live, is good enough for me.
But we did have a good time, and some good memories. The van would not start when we were about to leave on the trip. It took us about two hours longer to get there than we had thought it would. We got to inner-tube in one of the prettiest lakes in the nation. The pizza seemed foreign to us, but it was still pretty good. We got to see Barney Fyffe! Well, an impersinator, of course. We rode some great rides at the parks. I got to show off my incredible singing skills singing the words "Rock-n-roll" to the song "Old Time Rock-n-Roll." We saw "The Duttons" who have preformed on the NBC t.v. show, "America's Got Talent." There were probably more memories that I can't think of right now as well.
So all in all, it was a good trip, and a place that I would encourage you to travel to one day if your time and pocket-book permits you. I am glad to be back, but I am thankful for the time I had there. Hope all of your travels are as blessed as mine!
Ryan
Monday, July 9, 2007
Independence Day
Pardon the delay on my blogs. My family went out of town from 6/30/07-7/7/07. Me and my family, including part of the extended family, as well as some family friends, went up to Branson Missouri.
Obviously we were gone during the fourth of July. We didn't really go simply for the fourth, that's just kinda how it happened. We usually go to Guntersville Lake for the fourth of July, but this time, something called "vacation" got in the way of that.
On the fourth, we really didn't do fireworks or anything like that. It was simple and relaxed, and we didn't party any. I like doing fireworks and watching fireworks for the fourth of July and New Years, but truth be told, they are over-priced in my opinion.
But regardless of what we did, or what you did, there is still a much greater meaning of this day, than the fireworks, parties, traditions, etc. It is about the indepence of this nation, and thus, it has rightfully earned the name "Independence Day." It is the anniversery of the day that our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the cause of freedom. It is one of those days in history that turned the world upside down. Thirteen colonies joined together to defeat the most powerful nation in the world. Those little thirteen colonies, over time, would expand and assume it's place amonst the nations, into arguably the most powerful nation in the world.
Back then, just like today, there were people with religious differences, political differences, and philosophical differences. Many of our founding fathers, such as George Washington I believe, were devout Christians. However some were Unitarians, and others were pretty close to Deists. All of our founding fathers believed in limited government, more so than just about any politician today claims, but there were political rivalries then as well. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were political rivals, as were Patrick Henry and James Madison.
But all of these men, despite differencs, came together under the cause of freedom. Through the help of God, these men did what not many thought they could not do: defeat Great Britain. They fought with each other despite their differences. As Benjamin Franklin put it just after signing the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or we'll all hang seperately." The brave men did just that. Not hang seperate, but hang together. In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, despite being political rivals, died as friends. As an interesting point of history, they died on the same day, fifty years to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Today, we still have brave men and women who go to war for the sake of their nation and it's people's freedom. But too often those of us, politician or no politician, take their work, and the work of our forefathers, and all those inbetween, for granted. We forget to think about how fortunate we are, why we are so fortunate, and what we can do to make life even better. Far too often our leaders forget that it was the cause of independence that brought our nation into existence. Far too often the people forget that as well. Thankfully, we do have people who join together to fight for this nation that they call home. This war we are in now should be more than a game of politics, but a fight for freedom, whether you are for the war or against it.
So please, even though this is five days after Independence Day, remember the meaning of it. Two-hundred and thirty-one years ago, there were people who's lives were in trouble, so that I may write this blog today. Let us never forget our Independence, and where it came from. God bless America!
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I will soon write a blog about our trip to Branson, Missouri. I also plan to write another blog about America, but this time, the things that are not so good with America, all with love for country though. I plan to write another blog on Christian worship sometime as well. I would also like to write a blog on the basement, a local church-like phenomena that has grown really popular in the local area. I have put this blog off because of the fact that I have never been to the basement, and because I know people who love it as well as people who don't like it, and I don't want to compromise any unity of the church. I will probably put a few more blogs on here as well, but that's a little "heads-up" to what you can expect.
What do you think?
-Ryan
Obviously we were gone during the fourth of July. We didn't really go simply for the fourth, that's just kinda how it happened. We usually go to Guntersville Lake for the fourth of July, but this time, something called "vacation" got in the way of that.
On the fourth, we really didn't do fireworks or anything like that. It was simple and relaxed, and we didn't party any. I like doing fireworks and watching fireworks for the fourth of July and New Years, but truth be told, they are over-priced in my opinion.
But regardless of what we did, or what you did, there is still a much greater meaning of this day, than the fireworks, parties, traditions, etc. It is about the indepence of this nation, and thus, it has rightfully earned the name "Independence Day." It is the anniversery of the day that our forefathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the cause of freedom. It is one of those days in history that turned the world upside down. Thirteen colonies joined together to defeat the most powerful nation in the world. Those little thirteen colonies, over time, would expand and assume it's place amonst the nations, into arguably the most powerful nation in the world.
Back then, just like today, there were people with religious differences, political differences, and philosophical differences. Many of our founding fathers, such as George Washington I believe, were devout Christians. However some were Unitarians, and others were pretty close to Deists. All of our founding fathers believed in limited government, more so than just about any politician today claims, but there were political rivalries then as well. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were political rivals, as were Patrick Henry and James Madison.
But all of these men, despite differencs, came together under the cause of freedom. Through the help of God, these men did what not many thought they could not do: defeat Great Britain. They fought with each other despite their differences. As Benjamin Franklin put it just after signing the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together or we'll all hang seperately." The brave men did just that. Not hang seperate, but hang together. In fact, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, despite being political rivals, died as friends. As an interesting point of history, they died on the same day, fifty years to the day after the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Today, we still have brave men and women who go to war for the sake of their nation and it's people's freedom. But too often those of us, politician or no politician, take their work, and the work of our forefathers, and all those inbetween, for granted. We forget to think about how fortunate we are, why we are so fortunate, and what we can do to make life even better. Far too often our leaders forget that it was the cause of independence that brought our nation into existence. Far too often the people forget that as well. Thankfully, we do have people who join together to fight for this nation that they call home. This war we are in now should be more than a game of politics, but a fight for freedom, whether you are for the war or against it.
So please, even though this is five days after Independence Day, remember the meaning of it. Two-hundred and thirty-one years ago, there were people who's lives were in trouble, so that I may write this blog today. Let us never forget our Independence, and where it came from. God bless America!
UPCOMING BLOGS:
I will soon write a blog about our trip to Branson, Missouri. I also plan to write another blog about America, but this time, the things that are not so good with America, all with love for country though. I plan to write another blog on Christian worship sometime as well. I would also like to write a blog on the basement, a local church-like phenomena that has grown really popular in the local area. I have put this blog off because of the fact that I have never been to the basement, and because I know people who love it as well as people who don't like it, and I don't want to compromise any unity of the church. I will probably put a few more blogs on here as well, but that's a little "heads-up" to what you can expect.
What do you think?
-Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
