Men, Women, and Relationships
Not too long ago, our Pastor, Reverend Rich Lusk, did a sermon series on the Christian family, largely centered on the husband and wife. The history of this series goes back a while. At the season of lent (just before Easter), he was doing a series on the seven deadly sins- doing one each week. But he went out of town one of those weeks, and left out the last of the seven deadly sins- lust. After he preached on six of the seven deadly sins, he began preaching in accordance to the church calendar, particularly the Easter story. Finally he was able to preach on lust. His sermon on lust led into the beginnings of his series on the family. After preaching on how not to look at and judge the opposite sex, he began to preach on how to look at the opposite sex, especially in the relationships of husband and wife. Essentially, he preached on looking at marriages through the lens of Jesus Christ, not through the lens of worldly desires. Keep this point in mind as reading below.
He brought up some good points, but perhaps what he stressed most was the marriage between Jesus Christ, and His bride, the church. Our earthly marriages should resemble this, and the world should see Christ in the marriages. He preached a while on the similarities and differences between men and women. He preached on the Trinity, and how our relationships, whether as family, husband and wife, or any relationships with people in general, should resemble the Trinity. There should be two people or two groups of people, connected by the love that they share, hence making a Triune relationship. God the Father and God the Son are joined by the Love of God the Holy Spirit. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are joined by the Love of God the Son. God the Holy Spirit and God the Son are joined by the Love of God the Father. God is a Trinity. God is love.
All of these are great points that he brought out, but this blog is more than just a mere retelling of what the Reverend Lusk said. I believe that if we put these points to the test, and put the Bible to the test, in reference to the world, these points and the Bible pass the test. To do this, let us look at the world today, both from the Christian worldview and from the world’s worldview, seeing if the Christian worldview holds up. We shall begin with some basic points, and then proceed into looking at the dangers of the relationships of men and women, as shown through the world’s worldview.
Men and women are different. The differences are not just skin deep. The very essence of who men and women are, are different. Modern science tells us that. Common sense tells us that. Women act differently, look at things differently, interpret things differently, and reason things differently than men do. This, however, does not mean that the way women see and perceive things is below or superior to the way men do. It just provides a different approach to things. Often times, men see things rationally while women see things emotionally. Both rationality and emotions are important, and neither one should be taken out of its context- whether taken away or given too much of.
For this reason, in one very real sense, men and women complete each other. The woman is supposed to submit to the man. The man is supposed to be the ruler over the household, while the woman may be the ruler within the household. This is why men go to work outside the house for the family more than women, but women may work more within the house more than men. The man is judged by how the family is corporately, while the woman may be judged by the way the house looks inside. Men do not necessarily always mind going to work for the family, but they like coming home to a clean house and a warm plate of supper! This does not mean that men can not work inside the house, or that women can not work outside the house, but men take pride in their work and women take pride in their relationship. Men take pride in being a leader and protector. Women take pride in being protected and worthy of being protected. It all sounds great doesn’t it? Each person does their part to make a happy family.
But we don’t live in this utopian society. We live in a fallen world with fallen people. Men take pride in their work, which is good. Women take pride in their relationships, which is good. But what do we see come from that in a fallen world? Women emotionally give into many relationships that they should not be in. Men find it okay to get involved in casual and meaningless relationships for the means of casual sex. Men become jealous because they want to be the protectors. Women get jealous because they want to be protected. Men, being rationally minded, believe in searching for the right person, while women, being emotionally minded, long for that "perfect someone" to come like prince charming, so that they don’t have to search. But even beyond all of this, we see pride. Men and women both look too lightly on their jobs. They seem to talk about one small mistake their spouse makes, while forgetting about their own responsibilities (Matthew 7:3). As Reverend Lusk said, "Sometimes the best attitude to have is to shut up and serve."
But with a fallen world, humans begin acting like the other animals. Men look for choices and opportunities. This is what leads them to casual sex, casual and meaningless relationships, and "using" girls for their own personal benefits. They want to appear attractive because of the people they are around, both in number and in their appearance. Women on the other hand, look for one relationship. This is good until they fall too easily. You know the classic saying that parents tell their little kids who think that they have found love: "You don’t know what love is." In reality, not many people do- but they think they do. Women fall so fast, only to be used by another guy. Women justify casual sex by claiming it is not casual, when in reality it is. When men cheat, it is because they go and "scout out" other women, trying to be dominant and prove what they see as man-hood. They may be carrying on more than one relationship at a time. Women fall more emotionally. After they have been with one guy a while, and another one comes along and seems more "exiting" they are easily swept in. Men may end up with many girlfriends or sex partners at a time believing it makes them dominant. Women may say they only have one, but they bounce around so much it doesn’t seem to matter anyway. The end results are essentially the same, but men and women reach them differently. Men seek to be dominant. Women fall too easily. As Reverend Lusk said in his sermon on lust, "Men lust, and women want to be lusted."
Ouch! I have heavily criticized both men and women! Was I too mean? I write all of this from the standpoint of fallen man. This is how things work between men and women in a sinful world- at least from the world’s point of view. But what about things from God’s point of view?
The way men and women are, in many respects, is how God created it to be. Adam was to be a ruler and a leader. The Bible told him to guard and subdue the garden and the land of Eden (Genesis 1:28). He was to cherish Eve and protect her. Eve was to assist Adam in his important task. Mankind in general was head of the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26). Ultimately, though, they were both to submit to God, and protect the house as if it was God’s house- because it was. Adam and Eve were joined by the love that they shared- love which would resemble God’s love. They were to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). They were created in God’s very image [Genesis 1:26 (also note the usage of the terms us and our to describe the one God)]. It is evident from Scripture that creating both male and female is an essential aspect of how man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God had dominion over man, but He entrusted man to have dominion over all other animals. There was almost like a system of hierarchy going on. The animals were similar to man, and man was similar to God. But the animals were not man, and man was not God. Nor were the animals really comparable to God Himself.
Chronologically, Adam was given his duties even before God formed Eve. In Genesis 2:16-17, God tells Adam to eat from every tree of the garden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Interestingly enough, it is in that very next verse, verse 18, that God "realizes" that it is not good for man to be alone. After searching every beast, bird, and all other creatures, God realizes that there is no one comparable to Adam to be his helper. In verse 21, God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep taking out one of his bones in order to make woman. Verse 25 tells us that they were both naked and unashamed. There was nothing they were hiding. They were both one before each other and before God Almighty.
So Eve was made for Adam. Adam was first given work, but Eve was made to assist in the work and to complete Adam. Eve is also very dependant on the relationship with Adam. Adam may seem to have a natural tendency to want to be alone, being the head, and the one who has been given the chief responsibility of subduing the garden and the land and the world. But even yet, when Adam was faithful and wise, he realized not only his dependence to God directly, but also indirectly by what God had given him, especially in Eve. Adam realized that Eve was Adam. Adam even said, "This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Unfortunately, however, Adam failed in his task by not guarding and protecting the garden. He allowed the evil serpent to come into the garden and tempt Eve. Even after this, he fell even more by eating of the fruit.
But these are all very similar to the general way we perceive things today. Man is the leader and protector. Man has a higher calling on his job, while woman has a higher calling to the relationship. The two are joined together to be made one, but very much as a Trinity- the two people united by the love that they share. Genesis 2:24 tells us that "Man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh." This is the same commandment that Jesus gives in Matthew 19:5. We saw in Genesis that woman was made for man. That is exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:9, which reads, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Paul makes clear in Ephesians chapter five what was showed in Genesis. Ephesians 5:22-25 reads, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it."
We have concluded here that what was intended in Genesis is still intended today, even after the fall. We are not perfect, but that does not really mean we have a different calling (in some areas we do because we are to preach to the lost, whereas before the fall there was no lost- but the obligations of men and women’s relationship is the same). Now let us compare these things to what the world offers. Above I said that essentially we see the same basic obligations, so why would God command something that obviously has bad results as shown above? The world would agree that a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, and they shall, by some standard, become one. The world would agree that women think more emotionally, and that women seek relationships more, while men seek work more and are more rationally minded. In the world, women want men both strong physically and internally to be a good protector. This also seems Biblical. A lot of what the world wants is exactly what is offered in the Bible by God.
But even yet, relationships that are founded completely on Christian principles seem better, purer, and happier. What is the difference, or is there one?
There is a difference- not in the general principles, but in the lens that people see them through. Do people look to the marriage of Christ and the church as the ultimate standard of marriage? Or is it found in money, sex, and appearance?
There is plenty of Biblical reason to see things this way. Ultimately, anything we do should be done for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Psalm 127:1a reads, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." Psalm 128:1 says, "Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in His ways." Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom." Perhaps most relevant of all though, is what Joshua says in Joshua 24:15- "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Ultimately, a Christian marriage is about placing God first. Joshua, as the leader of the house, takes the responsibility of speaking in behalf of his family by saying that they will serve the Lord.
I believe that this blog can show us a few things. For one, our marriages should be centered on the marriage of Jesus Christ and the church in light of the Gospel. This great comparison is shown clearly in Ephesians 5:22-25 as quoted above. Unless our presupposition to our marriages are found in the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ, our marriages will suffer. I believe it can also show us that the Bible is accurate, and that God’s way is best. The world even mimics God’s way of marriage. It does not work because the world does not place their hope through Jesus Christ. As Reverend Lusk pointed out (paraphrased), "It looks so great and so beautiful when marriages are lived out in light of the Gospel." The world can only try, but unless they put their hope in Jesus, they will always fail. Finally, we can better understand the seriousness of the fall of man. Even when man does things according the basic patterns of God’s will, it does not work as sufficiently under the fall, and it does not work at all when our hope is not found in Jesus Christ.
Our marriages are a strong representation to the Christian faith, and the Christian faith should be the representative in our marriages.
You may hear some of Reverend Lusk’s sermon audio at http://trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php
What do you think?
God Bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 28, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Friday, September 28, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Harry Potter
Harry Potter
A while back I went and say one of the Harry Potter movies. It was the first time I had seen any of them. Some people probably think I’m strange for not being a Harry Potter fanatic, while others would call it a sin that I would see such a movie with all of the "witchcraft and magic."
Many conservative Christians are against Harry Potter because of what it brings forth, and because of the scenes of witchcraft presented. However those in favor of Harry Potter come back with counter-arguments themselves as to why it is okay.
Essentially, the argument against it seems to be "Well it’s bad because it has things in it that could never happen- it is all about make believe, fairy tail, and magic- all of things which contradict the Bible." But the argument for reading Harry Potter or at least for not being against it, is, "It’s just a book- what harm can a book do?"
These are very basic arguments, and I do not presume anyone holds absolutely and completely to one of these views, disregarding the other with all of their heart and mind. But these are essentially the basic and common arguments for whichever side arguing. I do believe that we should take a deeper look at the issue than these two mere arguments, because I believe that each one is fatal in and of itself.
First, let us consider the fallacies against the argument against reading Harry Potter. We should not simply reject anything that uses scenes and schemes that seem out of this world. These are used in the Bible plenty of times. Isn’t there a story of a horse talking recorded in the Bible? Wow! That sounds like something we’d hear on Toy Story, Spirit, or Harry Potter. Why is Harry Potter the only rejected story of these? Why do we reject Harry Potter and not The Chronicles of Narnia et al? In fact, the author of Harry Potter intended for many of the themes to be Christian themes.
However there is also great problem with the argument "It’s just a book." What if I said "Pornography is just a magazine- it’s fine." My argument would not hold up next to the Bible. If the book does show us something that is anti-Christian, then we should, moderately stay away from it. Even yet, though, it may not hurt to see and read it so that our ignorance would not show forth the one who supports the sinful book. However we should only read it if we can handle it and not have our faith shaken, and if it is not something sinful to read in and of itself.
So where does my opinion lie. It is hard for me to say for sure, but I honestly did not feel as if Harry Potter is really bad. The themes that seem to be of witchcraft can be explained by either a different universe, advanced technology, or by symbolism. If we present a story within a different universe, understanding that this different universe does not really exist, then we really lose nothing- we gain a nice story. If the scenes are explained by a highly advanced version of this universe (as many but not all in this case are), then we lose nothing, but rather gain the imagination of what the universe could be. If the scenes are symbolism’s, then we lose nothing, but rather gain knowing what the symbols could be about- often these symbolism’s may be Christian themes. It is possible to have a bad theme, but I don’t see that conclusively here. I believe that most of the Harry Potter movie I saw could be explained by one of those. I could not really understand the symbolism’s, but I had not read any of the books, or seen any of the other movies.
Still, guard what you hear and see with the Word of God. Do not look at these books and movies in the wrong light, but if possible, a better way to see the grace of God and the truth of Scripture.
What Do You Think?
God Bless America
Pray For Our Troops
September 24, 2007
Ryan Hampton
A while back I went and say one of the Harry Potter movies. It was the first time I had seen any of them. Some people probably think I’m strange for not being a Harry Potter fanatic, while others would call it a sin that I would see such a movie with all of the "witchcraft and magic."
Many conservative Christians are against Harry Potter because of what it brings forth, and because of the scenes of witchcraft presented. However those in favor of Harry Potter come back with counter-arguments themselves as to why it is okay.
Essentially, the argument against it seems to be "Well it’s bad because it has things in it that could never happen- it is all about make believe, fairy tail, and magic- all of things which contradict the Bible." But the argument for reading Harry Potter or at least for not being against it, is, "It’s just a book- what harm can a book do?"
These are very basic arguments, and I do not presume anyone holds absolutely and completely to one of these views, disregarding the other with all of their heart and mind. But these are essentially the basic and common arguments for whichever side arguing. I do believe that we should take a deeper look at the issue than these two mere arguments, because I believe that each one is fatal in and of itself.
First, let us consider the fallacies against the argument against reading Harry Potter. We should not simply reject anything that uses scenes and schemes that seem out of this world. These are used in the Bible plenty of times. Isn’t there a story of a horse talking recorded in the Bible? Wow! That sounds like something we’d hear on Toy Story, Spirit, or Harry Potter. Why is Harry Potter the only rejected story of these? Why do we reject Harry Potter and not The Chronicles of Narnia et al? In fact, the author of Harry Potter intended for many of the themes to be Christian themes.
However there is also great problem with the argument "It’s just a book." What if I said "Pornography is just a magazine- it’s fine." My argument would not hold up next to the Bible. If the book does show us something that is anti-Christian, then we should, moderately stay away from it. Even yet, though, it may not hurt to see and read it so that our ignorance would not show forth the one who supports the sinful book. However we should only read it if we can handle it and not have our faith shaken, and if it is not something sinful to read in and of itself.
So where does my opinion lie. It is hard for me to say for sure, but I honestly did not feel as if Harry Potter is really bad. The themes that seem to be of witchcraft can be explained by either a different universe, advanced technology, or by symbolism. If we present a story within a different universe, understanding that this different universe does not really exist, then we really lose nothing- we gain a nice story. If the scenes are explained by a highly advanced version of this universe (as many but not all in this case are), then we lose nothing, but rather gain the imagination of what the universe could be. If the scenes are symbolism’s, then we lose nothing, but rather gain knowing what the symbols could be about- often these symbolism’s may be Christian themes. It is possible to have a bad theme, but I don’t see that conclusively here. I believe that most of the Harry Potter movie I saw could be explained by one of those. I could not really understand the symbolism’s, but I had not read any of the books, or seen any of the other movies.
Still, guard what you hear and see with the Word of God. Do not look at these books and movies in the wrong light, but if possible, a better way to see the grace of God and the truth of Scripture.
What Do You Think?
God Bless America
Pray For Our Troops
September 24, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, September 16, 2007
The Great Fraud
THE GREAT FRAUD
An important and controversial topic in today’s world is the issue of illegal immigration. Many people believe immigrants come in and try to take over of America for its freedom, and all the many great things in this nation. Once, I overheard two people talking, one person half-jokingly say (to more or less of this degree), "If you take away a free economy, free education, and all of the other things that make America great, then the Mexicans won’t want to come here anyway, and it will all be good." He was half-joking, but the main point was that America has many great things that the Mexican immigrants are after- even illegally.
This may be true somewhat, but one thing really caught my ear in what was said. He used the term "free education." Before going into detail, may I give you an economics 101 lesson: "Nothing is free- someone pays for everything somewhere."
The teachers are paid. The people who write the text-books are paid. The people who build the school buildings and all other on-campus facilities are paid. In fact, many people are begging for teachers to get paid more, and more great things in the schools. There is money involved in the public school system, and it is coming from somewhere. Where is it coming from?
Essentially, it is coming from the government. But where does government receive its money? There are three basic ways the government gets money. One is to print off money. One is to borrow money from other countries. And the third way is to tax its people. The first of these ways is basically useless, because inflation will take over and make the "money" useless (as has happened in America). The second way will get you money at first, but then those nations will want it back. The third way is the way the government obtains useful money without having to pay it back. This way is, of course, taxing the people.
So essentially, you pay for education. You pay for the public schools, and the government, the official treasurer of them, controls the schools. In fact, government (public) schools spend more per pupil than the average private school costs per pupil- and all of this is at the expense of degrading the education system. Furthermore, you still pay for education even if you are widowed, have no children, have two children in school, or eight children in school. It is unfair. Some claim that it is fair because it helps the "common good." But you will privately pay for the services the products of public schools do anyway. The private sector seems to offer better people for the "real world" than public schools do anyway. America, with all of its money, is still just mediocre in education when compared to other countries. The public school students fair worse than the private school students.
I know that some would say the reason private schools do better is because the private schools have more money (this myth already busted above, however), because they can accept and deny their students, and because they have to be better in order to obtain any students. Even the last two are not completely true when backed with statistics, but even yet, however it is, the point is that the private education system is above the public school system. If education is so important (as it is, and as proponents of government schools claim), then we should have the best system for our children. If the private school sector does it better, then shouldn’t this be the standard?
Proponents of government schools tell us that education is "too important to be left to the competitive free market." But isn’t the education of our children too important to be left in the hands of politicians- politicians we may or may not like, and who lie and buy their way into office? The free market provides competition and choice. Competition and choice offer great incentives and opportunities for teachers, parents, and students.
Still, public school proponents tell us it is to help the poor people. But if this was the case, should the government set up a government housing system, where you pay money and the government gives you the house of their choice, not your choosing? This is essentially how it happens in education. You pay money for the government to send you to a school you may or may not like.
This brings up another point. What if the government did "give" you a house as was mentioned above, and that this house was not one of your choosing? This gives a "one size fits all approach." Do we want this in education? I think not. There are many different ways one can learn. We don’t want a post-office style education. We want advances, an freedom. There are many different areas where people are gifted at such as sports, music, business, mathematics, communications, etc. This may sound like college, but we can still use the same general basic principle of choice in elementary, middle, and high schools. People learn in different ways, and do not need a "one size fits all" approach.
Furthermore, all of this is not even to mention the different religions, and political ideologies. If there is a separation of church and state, there should be a separation of school and state. Ultimately, one’s education is going to come in terms with religion, politics, and moral philosophy. Why do you think there is debate over prayer and God’s name used in school, evolution taught in school, sex education in school, etc? Ultimately, these are decisions that should be made by the parents, but can not to some level be avoided in education (especially when education is for over seven hours a day, five days a week, and nine months a year). Questions such as the existence of God, the probability- or lack thereof- of evolution, and all other sorts of political, religious, and philosophical questions can not be avoided entirely- at least not without minimizing education to a politically correct standard, which would make many parents mad. Even neutrality is a special kind of bias.
So what does all of this tell us? It tells us that the government takes your money, forces you to go to school, then funds and teaches children according the government’s standards. Our founders showed no signs of favoring a common and government-sponsored education system. In fact, it was mostly Northern intellectuals in the mid 1800’s that favored this- for the purpose of indoctrinating children with their views and interpretation of history and the world around us. Perhaps "free education" should be renamed "forced indoctrination." This really is a great fraud.
So what should happen? All education should be made private. Taxes should be lowered so that any money being budgeted for education would go back into the hands of the people- where it belongs. Furthermore, all compulsory attendance laws should be taken away. Education is your choice and your duty. Compulsory attendance laws hurt the private sector too because it gives the government a chance to define what school is or is not. Even in the private sector, this is a certain amount of government control.
If this seems so foreign to you, I understand. But I ask that you open-mindedly ask yourself two questions. First, is government education Constitutional? Politicians that we elect swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. Where does the U.S. Constitution give government the right to sponsor much less control education? The second question is whose right is education anyway- the free people, or the government? I think that that question is obvious.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our troops.
September 16, 2007
Ryan Hampton
An important and controversial topic in today’s world is the issue of illegal immigration. Many people believe immigrants come in and try to take over of America for its freedom, and all the many great things in this nation. Once, I overheard two people talking, one person half-jokingly say (to more or less of this degree), "If you take away a free economy, free education, and all of the other things that make America great, then the Mexicans won’t want to come here anyway, and it will all be good." He was half-joking, but the main point was that America has many great things that the Mexican immigrants are after- even illegally.
This may be true somewhat, but one thing really caught my ear in what was said. He used the term "free education." Before going into detail, may I give you an economics 101 lesson: "Nothing is free- someone pays for everything somewhere."
The teachers are paid. The people who write the text-books are paid. The people who build the school buildings and all other on-campus facilities are paid. In fact, many people are begging for teachers to get paid more, and more great things in the schools. There is money involved in the public school system, and it is coming from somewhere. Where is it coming from?
Essentially, it is coming from the government. But where does government receive its money? There are three basic ways the government gets money. One is to print off money. One is to borrow money from other countries. And the third way is to tax its people. The first of these ways is basically useless, because inflation will take over and make the "money" useless (as has happened in America). The second way will get you money at first, but then those nations will want it back. The third way is the way the government obtains useful money without having to pay it back. This way is, of course, taxing the people.
So essentially, you pay for education. You pay for the public schools, and the government, the official treasurer of them, controls the schools. In fact, government (public) schools spend more per pupil than the average private school costs per pupil- and all of this is at the expense of degrading the education system. Furthermore, you still pay for education even if you are widowed, have no children, have two children in school, or eight children in school. It is unfair. Some claim that it is fair because it helps the "common good." But you will privately pay for the services the products of public schools do anyway. The private sector seems to offer better people for the "real world" than public schools do anyway. America, with all of its money, is still just mediocre in education when compared to other countries. The public school students fair worse than the private school students.
I know that some would say the reason private schools do better is because the private schools have more money (this myth already busted above, however), because they can accept and deny their students, and because they have to be better in order to obtain any students. Even the last two are not completely true when backed with statistics, but even yet, however it is, the point is that the private education system is above the public school system. If education is so important (as it is, and as proponents of government schools claim), then we should have the best system for our children. If the private school sector does it better, then shouldn’t this be the standard?
Proponents of government schools tell us that education is "too important to be left to the competitive free market." But isn’t the education of our children too important to be left in the hands of politicians- politicians we may or may not like, and who lie and buy their way into office? The free market provides competition and choice. Competition and choice offer great incentives and opportunities for teachers, parents, and students.
Still, public school proponents tell us it is to help the poor people. But if this was the case, should the government set up a government housing system, where you pay money and the government gives you the house of their choice, not your choosing? This is essentially how it happens in education. You pay money for the government to send you to a school you may or may not like.
This brings up another point. What if the government did "give" you a house as was mentioned above, and that this house was not one of your choosing? This gives a "one size fits all approach." Do we want this in education? I think not. There are many different ways one can learn. We don’t want a post-office style education. We want advances, an freedom. There are many different areas where people are gifted at such as sports, music, business, mathematics, communications, etc. This may sound like college, but we can still use the same general basic principle of choice in elementary, middle, and high schools. People learn in different ways, and do not need a "one size fits all" approach.
Furthermore, all of this is not even to mention the different religions, and political ideologies. If there is a separation of church and state, there should be a separation of school and state. Ultimately, one’s education is going to come in terms with religion, politics, and moral philosophy. Why do you think there is debate over prayer and God’s name used in school, evolution taught in school, sex education in school, etc? Ultimately, these are decisions that should be made by the parents, but can not to some level be avoided in education (especially when education is for over seven hours a day, five days a week, and nine months a year). Questions such as the existence of God, the probability- or lack thereof- of evolution, and all other sorts of political, religious, and philosophical questions can not be avoided entirely- at least not without minimizing education to a politically correct standard, which would make many parents mad. Even neutrality is a special kind of bias.
So what does all of this tell us? It tells us that the government takes your money, forces you to go to school, then funds and teaches children according the government’s standards. Our founders showed no signs of favoring a common and government-sponsored education system. In fact, it was mostly Northern intellectuals in the mid 1800’s that favored this- for the purpose of indoctrinating children with their views and interpretation of history and the world around us. Perhaps "free education" should be renamed "forced indoctrination." This really is a great fraud.
So what should happen? All education should be made private. Taxes should be lowered so that any money being budgeted for education would go back into the hands of the people- where it belongs. Furthermore, all compulsory attendance laws should be taken away. Education is your choice and your duty. Compulsory attendance laws hurt the private sector too because it gives the government a chance to define what school is or is not. Even in the private sector, this is a certain amount of government control.
If this seems so foreign to you, I understand. But I ask that you open-mindedly ask yourself two questions. First, is government education Constitutional? Politicians that we elect swear an oath of loyalty to the Constitution. Where does the U.S. Constitution give government the right to sponsor much less control education? The second question is whose right is education anyway- the free people, or the government? I think that that question is obvious.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our troops.
September 16, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Friday, September 14, 2007
Despite Loss, Auburn Fans Shouldn't Worry
Last Saturday Auburn was upset by South Florida in overtime by a score of 26-23. Since then, radio talk shows, television, and other forms of communication that carry sports news, have been talking about how poor Auburn seems to be this year. Whether they blame it on the coaching staff, the offensive line, or the former Hewitt Trussville Husky, Brandon Cox, they are constantly criticizing Auburn at some level. Alabama rejoice that now, not only is Alabama supposedly "back," but Auburn is too- to a mediocre level as "that other school in Alabama." Tiger fans are worried themselves that this could be true.
Although there is a lot of improvement Auburn can and should make, and although they are not what they were in 2004 or 2005, there is not too much reason to really worry if you’re an Auburn fan. Only time will tell for sure what will happen, but if the past of Tommy Tubberville is any indication, the Tigers should still have at least a decent team. Auburn started off 0-2 in 2003, going on to finish the year 8-5 (including those loses), and undefeated the next year. Auburn lost their home opener in 2005 to Georgia Tech, but went on to have the best SEC record in the SEC, at 7-1, and defeated SEC champions Georgia and arch-rival Alabama. In 2006, Auburn fought and clawed their way to win eleven games. Along the way, they played close to mediocre teams such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Alabama, and got whipped at home by Arkansas and Georgia. Still, this was the same Tiger team who defeated LSU, Nebraska, and as the only team to do so, national champions Florida.
So what should that tell us? It should tell us that Auburn lost some key points on their team, and have not found out exactly how to fill in those gaps yet. However, it usually starts coming at about this time of year that they do. All they need is to find themselves, and this Auburn team could be a dangerous team in the SEC and in the nation.
And perhaps the Mississippi St. game could not come at a better time. This is a game that is more than just a scrimmage, unlike Western Carolina or Ball St., but is a game that they should win. If they do win, they get confidence, get back to a plus .500 record, and start off well in the SEC. But perhaps beyond all of that, if this game is not a nail-biter, they have a game in which they can find themselves- especially on offense.
So far, the offense has clicked, but to the exception of one quarter, it has not clicked on all cylinders all at the same time. In the second quarter of the South Florida game, to the exception of a Brandon Cox interception, the offense looked like the offense of 2004. They could run and pass efficiently. All they need now is consistency.
Auburn has an offensive line that will only get better. Auburn has two good running backs that will only get better. Mario Fannin shows problems with hanging onto the football, and Ben Tate shows signs of over running his blockers. They are both young running backs, and will only get better. Auburn has one of the best tight-end cores in the conference, and possibly the nation. Auburn does have talented wide receivers, they just show signs of mental mistakes that come at the beginning of the year. Auburn’s biggest concern on offense is their quarterback. But this is the same quarterback who started off 20-5 as a starter. With the defense and special teams behind him, and an offense that will only get better, there is not reason why he can not lead Auburn to another seven or eight wins anyway, and to yet another bowl game, and possibly a sixth straight victory over arch-rival Alabama.
If Auburn loses this Saturday to Mississippi St., then there is reason to worry. But as of now, I don’t think that there is too much reason to. Auburn has too much talent behind them to have a season with any less than eight wins- even with a tough schedule. Besides, they were only predicted to win eight or nine games anyway. For a fairly young team such as Auburn, losing to decent teams such as South Florida should be accepted perhaps even expected. Because of Auburn’s talent the past three years, though, it wasn’t.
But whatever the outcome of this season is, and the games Saturday are, may I leave you with a big War Eagle! Even if Auburn loses, no one can take away that Auburn spirit.
What do you think?
Pray for our Troops.
God Bless America
September 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Although there is a lot of improvement Auburn can and should make, and although they are not what they were in 2004 or 2005, there is not too much reason to really worry if you’re an Auburn fan. Only time will tell for sure what will happen, but if the past of Tommy Tubberville is any indication, the Tigers should still have at least a decent team. Auburn started off 0-2 in 2003, going on to finish the year 8-5 (including those loses), and undefeated the next year. Auburn lost their home opener in 2005 to Georgia Tech, but went on to have the best SEC record in the SEC, at 7-1, and defeated SEC champions Georgia and arch-rival Alabama. In 2006, Auburn fought and clawed their way to win eleven games. Along the way, they played close to mediocre teams such as South Carolina, Ole Miss, and Alabama, and got whipped at home by Arkansas and Georgia. Still, this was the same Tiger team who defeated LSU, Nebraska, and as the only team to do so, national champions Florida.
So what should that tell us? It should tell us that Auburn lost some key points on their team, and have not found out exactly how to fill in those gaps yet. However, it usually starts coming at about this time of year that they do. All they need is to find themselves, and this Auburn team could be a dangerous team in the SEC and in the nation.
And perhaps the Mississippi St. game could not come at a better time. This is a game that is more than just a scrimmage, unlike Western Carolina or Ball St., but is a game that they should win. If they do win, they get confidence, get back to a plus .500 record, and start off well in the SEC. But perhaps beyond all of that, if this game is not a nail-biter, they have a game in which they can find themselves- especially on offense.
So far, the offense has clicked, but to the exception of one quarter, it has not clicked on all cylinders all at the same time. In the second quarter of the South Florida game, to the exception of a Brandon Cox interception, the offense looked like the offense of 2004. They could run and pass efficiently. All they need now is consistency.
Auburn has an offensive line that will only get better. Auburn has two good running backs that will only get better. Mario Fannin shows problems with hanging onto the football, and Ben Tate shows signs of over running his blockers. They are both young running backs, and will only get better. Auburn has one of the best tight-end cores in the conference, and possibly the nation. Auburn does have talented wide receivers, they just show signs of mental mistakes that come at the beginning of the year. Auburn’s biggest concern on offense is their quarterback. But this is the same quarterback who started off 20-5 as a starter. With the defense and special teams behind him, and an offense that will only get better, there is not reason why he can not lead Auburn to another seven or eight wins anyway, and to yet another bowl game, and possibly a sixth straight victory over arch-rival Alabama.
If Auburn loses this Saturday to Mississippi St., then there is reason to worry. But as of now, I don’t think that there is too much reason to. Auburn has too much talent behind them to have a season with any less than eight wins- even with a tough schedule. Besides, they were only predicted to win eight or nine games anyway. For a fairly young team such as Auburn, losing to decent teams such as South Florida should be accepted perhaps even expected. Because of Auburn’s talent the past three years, though, it wasn’t.
But whatever the outcome of this season is, and the games Saturday are, may I leave you with a big War Eagle! Even if Auburn loses, no one can take away that Auburn spirit.
What do you think?
Pray for our Troops.
God Bless America
September 14, 2007
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Do You Remember?
While writing my latest blog on Steve Irwin, it occurred to me that here we are at the anniversary of the horrible 9/11 attacks. So often in America today, we forget about that days tragedies, and about the American spirit that arose. We were not politically correct. We did not get offended by the President talking about God, or asking for your prayers. No one wanted to be compassionate to terrorists. No one (not many) were asking to get rid of your guns. I imagine more people bought a gun and a Bible that day than ever before, and more than people asked to get rid of your guns throughout that week.
We were one nation under God. The President, the people, and all branches of government. This is not in any way to make a statement one way or the other about war, as to if it was good, bad, or whatever. In my opinion, there have been many downfalls in the war. But that is not the point. We were all one team. Just about all of us wanted to catch the terrorists who were behind such horrible acts. We all supported those doing the dirty work by risking their lives to do such a thing. We all prayed for the President. Many people who didn’t believe in God before, or did not really care, realized that this is when we need God. God offers hope, community, and love. There were probably more words read from the Bible that day than there were words spoken by atheists.
In closing, do you remember the day when Satan seemed so close? This was the day people lost lives, and the day we could not bear to see the wrath that was showed. But it was also this day that we rose again, stood up as one, trusted in God, and seemed more and more like the nation we were intended to be. Do you remember? I hope so.
What do you think?
God bless America.
Pray for our troops.
September 12, 2007.
Ryan Hampton.
We were one nation under God. The President, the people, and all branches of government. This is not in any way to make a statement one way or the other about war, as to if it was good, bad, or whatever. In my opinion, there have been many downfalls in the war. But that is not the point. We were all one team. Just about all of us wanted to catch the terrorists who were behind such horrible acts. We all supported those doing the dirty work by risking their lives to do such a thing. We all prayed for the President. Many people who didn’t believe in God before, or did not really care, realized that this is when we need God. God offers hope, community, and love. There were probably more words read from the Bible that day than there were words spoken by atheists.
In closing, do you remember the day when Satan seemed so close? This was the day people lost lives, and the day we could not bear to see the wrath that was showed. But it was also this day that we rose again, stood up as one, trusted in God, and seemed more and more like the nation we were intended to be. Do you remember? I hope so.
What do you think?
God bless America.
Pray for our troops.
September 12, 2007.
Ryan Hampton.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Remembering Steve Irwin
It has been just over a year since the passing of Steve Irwin, the beloved Crocodile Hunter. People know him for his famous line, "Crickey!" and for his dangerous stunts that he always found a way to survive- until September 4, 2006. Not much controversy has followed his name, whether before or after death- only a brave animal lover doing what he loved.
Even after his death, it is hard to find much about his personal life, whether religion, politics, etc. He has been noted as a conservationist, environmentalist, and atheist, although his wife had claimed that he did believe in God. Still, little children don’t know him as "that environmental guy on CNN" but simply as "The Crocodile Hunter."
And that’s a good thing. There is nothing wrong with making political statements, so long as they are done in the appropriate ways. Steve Irwin was appropriate. He was appropriate by not being political much at all. He was an animal lover first, and a political activist way down the line after that. Furthermore, his practices would support his beliefs, whether they were right or wrong.
If you have read just a few of my blogs, you will probably be pretty aware that I am not an atheist, and you will probably get the idea I’m not a big environmentalist. It’s not that I am against helping the environment, though, but that I don’t like many of the environmentalist out there today, who turn to government to stop the very things they do or have. Unlike someone such as Al Gore, Steve Irwin did not ask for huge government spending to get rid of gas-powered products, while having one of the biggest gasoline bills in the country. He simply did what he loved- protecting endangered species, and explored wildlife.
It may be cliché to talk really good about someone just after death, or at the anniversary of their death, but Steve Irwin deserves it as much as anyone for his passion and lack of hypocrisy. He lived doing what he loved, and died doing what he loved. It’s not very often we can learn from an environmental atheist in any other way than by not doing what they do, but if that is what Steve Irwin was, then perhaps we can.
For a similar blog on Irwin, written just after his passing, check out "The True Environmentalist" by Josh Rutledge. http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/09/true-environmentalist.html
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 10, 2007
Ryan
Even after his death, it is hard to find much about his personal life, whether religion, politics, etc. He has been noted as a conservationist, environmentalist, and atheist, although his wife had claimed that he did believe in God. Still, little children don’t know him as "that environmental guy on CNN" but simply as "The Crocodile Hunter."
And that’s a good thing. There is nothing wrong with making political statements, so long as they are done in the appropriate ways. Steve Irwin was appropriate. He was appropriate by not being political much at all. He was an animal lover first, and a political activist way down the line after that. Furthermore, his practices would support his beliefs, whether they were right or wrong.
If you have read just a few of my blogs, you will probably be pretty aware that I am not an atheist, and you will probably get the idea I’m not a big environmentalist. It’s not that I am against helping the environment, though, but that I don’t like many of the environmentalist out there today, who turn to government to stop the very things they do or have. Unlike someone such as Al Gore, Steve Irwin did not ask for huge government spending to get rid of gas-powered products, while having one of the biggest gasoline bills in the country. He simply did what he loved- protecting endangered species, and explored wildlife.
It may be cliché to talk really good about someone just after death, or at the anniversary of their death, but Steve Irwin deserves it as much as anyone for his passion and lack of hypocrisy. He lived doing what he loved, and died doing what he loved. It’s not very often we can learn from an environmental atheist in any other way than by not doing what they do, but if that is what Steve Irwin was, then perhaps we can.
For a similar blog on Irwin, written just after his passing, check out "The True Environmentalist" by Josh Rutledge. http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/09/true-environmentalist.html
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 10, 2007
Ryan
Friday, September 7, 2007
The Basement Second Edition
You may recall that a while back I wrote a blog on The Basement, a local church-like function that attracts hundreds of people across the Birmingham area each week. At that time I had never been, but wrote on the standpoint of my opinion based off what I have gathered. Many people call it a cult while many others claim the real presence of God there. Well guess what! I finally decided to go for myself, to see what it was like.
Before going into great detail as to my opinions once visiting, I will sum up my opinions I expressed in the last blog about The Basement. The following is a brief outline of my opinions on such a place in general:
Guard what you hear with the Word of God, and use discernment in what you hear. It is essential that whatever anyone tells you, you should only believe it if it is Biblically consistent. When a Minister of the Word of God preaches about the Word of God, they should be able to back up their beliefs with Scripture. However, even as true as this is, this general "method," if you will, can be oversimplified. You may quote Scripture, but the second step is to interpret Scripture. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not make them right- they must interpret it right. If someone quotes Scripture and interprets it differently than you do, your church does, or your denomination does, consider the text in the context it is written, and make a reasonable opinionated conclusion as to if you need to be corrected, if the speaker needs to be corrected, or if it is somewhat of both. Remember, that there are some people who are called to preach The Gospel. Therefore, it is possible to learn from an ordained Minister of whom you may disagree with. Sometimes because they have training and the gift from God, you may indeed learn from them. However they must meet the qualifications and calling in order to claim any duty of a Minister, Elder, or preacher of the Word of God. Because they are preachers of the Word, they are held to a higher standard. They can still always be wrong. [See II Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 14:23, and Titus 1:5, James 1:19, James 3:1].
The style of worship does matter. In today’s world of Christianity, we live in an individualist standpoint that says that it does not matter at all how you worship God- as long as you "feel" it. But I ask one thing: what is more important, your personal emotions, or the Word of God? It would take a separate blog- or maybe even book- to write an in-depth opinion of corporate worship. But even yet, the way you worship does matter. Granted, one aspect of this should be praising God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Therefore, to disregard the "personal emotions" would be inconsistent within the Bible itself. We should just remember that worship is not based off of these emotions in and of themselves. [See Psalm 147:1, Luke 24:53, Psalm 145:3].
The music, preaching, and atmosphere should resemble the church universal. What people need more than anything is not deep theology (although this is important and should come), nor a place that harshly condemns their sins. What people need is acceptance, community, and love. The church should offer this universally. Therefore, in every aspect, a Christian gathering place should live as a living sacrifice attesting to the grace of God. Therefore, the church universally, and locally both, should be apart and distinct from the world. They should try to help the sinner, and be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. It is hard on a personal standpoint to know how to use the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and the "in but not of the world" approach, while still using the "all things to all people" approach that Paul talks about. But any place of corporate Christian gathering should be sensitive to how they meet this basic criteria. Therefore, they should accept people; they should teach people; they should forgive people; and they should be different- from the music to the way of life. [John 3:16, Romans 12:2, II Timothy 3:10].
This can not and should not be attempted to replace weekly Sunday morning worship. Sunday morning worship is very essential to Christian living. We are told not to forsake the assembly. Some may say that The Basement is assembly. It is, but I believe that there is something special about the weekly worship with God, where God renews His covenant with His people (not to mention the special kind of community one gathers from consistently attending a church). The Basement, if done right, may offer a community to the struggling Christian or to the non-Christian. However it is essential for the personal growth of the Christian to attend a weekly Christian church service. There are those who believe that the only assembly should be of the weekly worship, or that any other assembly should be done with all members of a particular church body. I would disagree. I think that a place such as The Basement can be a really good place for teenagers of different churches to gather amongst themselves. It just should not take the place of the weekly corporate worship. [Hebrews 10:24-25, Joel 1:14].
The above basically sums up my views with how we should approach something as The Basement. The following is how I feel The Basement falls into those basic guidelines. I write this in terms of unity within the church, so that I praise where praise should be given, and humbly offer my opinion where it may be faulted. If you see me in error, please correct me.
As I went into The Basement, I must say, it felt more like a pep rally or something to that effect. From one aspect that can be good because Christians want to "rally" other Christians. However as I went in, I did not feel as if I was going to church. I heard the "Christian" rap, and did not feel "at home." I must say that most of the people there were generous to me. They would introduce themselves, and so forth, trying to make me feel comfortable. I appreciated that. But by hearing the rap, I did not feel like this was God’s house. We should not say to the non-Christian, "Come here and be a Christian- we play rap, you like that, right?" We should offer an alternative to a worldly lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with offering a friendly atmosphere for people to come worship God, but it should be done in a way that is distinct and faithful. Changing "Party like a rock star" to "Jesus is my rock star" does not reflect what Christianity is all about. If anything, this seems to show people that Christians have to borrow from the worlds handbook in order to be who they are. In all reality, it is the world that borrows from the Christian’s handbook, essentially the Bible, to be consistent with their beliefs. We should show them that. We should show them God’s grace and love and forgiveness. It may not attract many people at first, but I would much rather hear "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners" or "We are God’s people" or "Amazing Grace" or "Holy, Holy, Holy." The music should show the non-Christian that Jesus is a friend of sinners, and remind the Christian to "Lift High the Cross."
After the rap, we all took a seat, and listened to the message from evangelist and speaker, Matt Pitt. His basic message was that God has a plan, and we should submit to His plan. This is very true. He often reminded us that it is God who is in control. Many mainstream Protestant Christians today seem to hold the view that Satan is in control, and God pulls out a miracle finish in the end. The point of Matt Pitt is what I believe: that it is God, not Satan, who is in control.
But there are some concerns as to how much Matt Pitt bases his messages off of the Bible. There is further concern that Matt Pitt uses nice rhetoric to defend and convince you of something that may not be true. I did see some reason for some of this concern in his message. Although I agreed with the general message, the way he expounded on his views was not always in line with my views. Perhaps the biggest thing that caught my ear was his seemingly ignorance of the Old Testament. He pretty much said that in the Old Testament "God’s plan was not working. It was getting about halftime, and God knew He needed to try something different. Moses didn’t work- nor David, Jonah, or Abraham. God sent in a new quarterback, Jesus, to save the way. Now it is a sure win." In some regards this sounds good. However we should remember that Moses, David, Jonah, and Abraham were not merely attempts by God to save a fallen people. These prepared the way for Christ. They were Biblical and providentially planned typologies pointing to Jesus Christ. It was not as if "God’s plan was not working." Nothing catches God off guard, nor does He have to ponder on a new "plan." Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is much greater than a quarterback. He is our Savior, perhaps you could say, "coach." [A good book to read on the typologies of the prophets and Old Testament stories would be "A House For My Name" written by Dr. Peter Leithart].
As far as Matt Pitt quoting from Scripture, he did a little bit, but not much. He seemed to do something along the lines of "Hebrews 8 tells us that…" When he would read directly from Scripture, he seemed to use a translation I was not aware of. It may have been a good translation, but I am somewhat skeptical of some newer translations.
There were a few things in the message that I did not feel really "belonged." He seemed somewhat mildly silly at times. I don’t have anything wrong with somewhat being funny in a sermon occasionally, but he seemed to try being funny a pretty good bit (maybe it’s me, but not much of it was funny to me anyway). He would say some edgy things, and then use the phrase, "I’m sorry God forgive me" almost in the same way that comedian Larry the Cable Guy would use it. He also seemed to bring people to the idea that if someone criticizes The Basement for anything, whether the rap, or whatever, that we should "rejoice because we are being persecuted for righteousness sake." We should rejoice for righteousness sake when our common faith in Jesus Christ is being attacked, but any church or corporate gathering of Saints should be open to reform. It is by reform that has given the church many victories of the past (Nicene Creed, Protestant Reformation to name a couple).
Still, the bulk of his message was good: we should be on God’s team, because He is the mastermind with the master plan. I was also glad to hear that Matt Pitt, as well as others, encouraged people to attend a church elsewhere. This, I believe, is essential to Christian living. However to know where we are at today (he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to give a message relative to our time, which is good), and how we should live, we need both a vision and a retrospect. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and those without a vision do not know what to live for.
After the message, people would come down and give more praise to God, but this time not through rap, but more contemporary Christian soft rock. Personally, I still think that hymns are better for corporate worship, but I do believe that there is a place for this. I think that the lifting of hands here was more genuine than the dancing on the rap that says "We’re getting crunk at The Basement" and "Jesus is my rock star." Of course, only God can be the absolute judge of this.
In closing, there were some good things about The Basement, but I still have my general concerns. I do not know Matt Pitt personally, so I cannot claim to be a good witness to his personal life. However continue to guard whatever he says with the Word of God. In doing this, though, do not assume that if he quotes Scripture, he is definitely right. Consider the verse in the context in which it is written, and whether or not his interpretation seems consistent and truthful. I also encourage you to not let The Basement be your only source of Christian knowledge and wisdom and worship. Attend a church elsewhere, if at all possible. Read your Bible personally. Do not forsake the assembly of Christian saints. I do not think it would be right for me to tell you not to attend The Basement just because I don’t like the rap that is there. There are many people who give true praise to God, and if they do that, then I’m sure that God is pleased for that. Even if The Basement has faults in it, I believe that God can use anything to give glory to His name, and to complete His plan- His plan that is working, and as we all know through faith, will work.
What do you think?
Ryan
Before going into great detail as to my opinions once visiting, I will sum up my opinions I expressed in the last blog about The Basement. The following is a brief outline of my opinions on such a place in general:
Guard what you hear with the Word of God, and use discernment in what you hear. It is essential that whatever anyone tells you, you should only believe it if it is Biblically consistent. When a Minister of the Word of God preaches about the Word of God, they should be able to back up their beliefs with Scripture. However, even as true as this is, this general "method," if you will, can be oversimplified. You may quote Scripture, but the second step is to interpret Scripture. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not make them right- they must interpret it right. If someone quotes Scripture and interprets it differently than you do, your church does, or your denomination does, consider the text in the context it is written, and make a reasonable opinionated conclusion as to if you need to be corrected, if the speaker needs to be corrected, or if it is somewhat of both. Remember, that there are some people who are called to preach The Gospel. Therefore, it is possible to learn from an ordained Minister of whom you may disagree with. Sometimes because they have training and the gift from God, you may indeed learn from them. However they must meet the qualifications and calling in order to claim any duty of a Minister, Elder, or preacher of the Word of God. Because they are preachers of the Word, they are held to a higher standard. They can still always be wrong. [See II Timothy 3:16-17, Acts 14:23, and Titus 1:5, James 1:19, James 3:1].
The style of worship does matter. In today’s world of Christianity, we live in an individualist standpoint that says that it does not matter at all how you worship God- as long as you "feel" it. But I ask one thing: what is more important, your personal emotions, or the Word of God? It would take a separate blog- or maybe even book- to write an in-depth opinion of corporate worship. But even yet, the way you worship does matter. Granted, one aspect of this should be praising God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Therefore, to disregard the "personal emotions" would be inconsistent within the Bible itself. We should just remember that worship is not based off of these emotions in and of themselves. [See Psalm 147:1, Luke 24:53, Psalm 145:3].
The music, preaching, and atmosphere should resemble the church universal. What people need more than anything is not deep theology (although this is important and should come), nor a place that harshly condemns their sins. What people need is acceptance, community, and love. The church should offer this universally. Therefore, in every aspect, a Christian gathering place should live as a living sacrifice attesting to the grace of God. Therefore, the church universally, and locally both, should be apart and distinct from the world. They should try to help the sinner, and be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. It is hard on a personal standpoint to know how to use the "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and the "in but not of the world" approach, while still using the "all things to all people" approach that Paul talks about. But any place of corporate Christian gathering should be sensitive to how they meet this basic criteria. Therefore, they should accept people; they should teach people; they should forgive people; and they should be different- from the music to the way of life. [John 3:16, Romans 12:2, II Timothy 3:10].
This can not and should not be attempted to replace weekly Sunday morning worship. Sunday morning worship is very essential to Christian living. We are told not to forsake the assembly. Some may say that The Basement is assembly. It is, but I believe that there is something special about the weekly worship with God, where God renews His covenant with His people (not to mention the special kind of community one gathers from consistently attending a church). The Basement, if done right, may offer a community to the struggling Christian or to the non-Christian. However it is essential for the personal growth of the Christian to attend a weekly Christian church service. There are those who believe that the only assembly should be of the weekly worship, or that any other assembly should be done with all members of a particular church body. I would disagree. I think that a place such as The Basement can be a really good place for teenagers of different churches to gather amongst themselves. It just should not take the place of the weekly corporate worship. [Hebrews 10:24-25, Joel 1:14].
The above basically sums up my views with how we should approach something as The Basement. The following is how I feel The Basement falls into those basic guidelines. I write this in terms of unity within the church, so that I praise where praise should be given, and humbly offer my opinion where it may be faulted. If you see me in error, please correct me.
As I went into The Basement, I must say, it felt more like a pep rally or something to that effect. From one aspect that can be good because Christians want to "rally" other Christians. However as I went in, I did not feel as if I was going to church. I heard the "Christian" rap, and did not feel "at home." I must say that most of the people there were generous to me. They would introduce themselves, and so forth, trying to make me feel comfortable. I appreciated that. But by hearing the rap, I did not feel like this was God’s house. We should not say to the non-Christian, "Come here and be a Christian- we play rap, you like that, right?" We should offer an alternative to a worldly lifestyle. There is nothing wrong with offering a friendly atmosphere for people to come worship God, but it should be done in a way that is distinct and faithful. Changing "Party like a rock star" to "Jesus is my rock star" does not reflect what Christianity is all about. If anything, this seems to show people that Christians have to borrow from the worlds handbook in order to be who they are. In all reality, it is the world that borrows from the Christian’s handbook, essentially the Bible, to be consistent with their beliefs. We should show them that. We should show them God’s grace and love and forgiveness. It may not attract many people at first, but I would much rather hear "Jesus, What a Friend of Sinners" or "We are God’s people" or "Amazing Grace" or "Holy, Holy, Holy." The music should show the non-Christian that Jesus is a friend of sinners, and remind the Christian to "Lift High the Cross."
After the rap, we all took a seat, and listened to the message from evangelist and speaker, Matt Pitt. His basic message was that God has a plan, and we should submit to His plan. This is very true. He often reminded us that it is God who is in control. Many mainstream Protestant Christians today seem to hold the view that Satan is in control, and God pulls out a miracle finish in the end. The point of Matt Pitt is what I believe: that it is God, not Satan, who is in control.
But there are some concerns as to how much Matt Pitt bases his messages off of the Bible. There is further concern that Matt Pitt uses nice rhetoric to defend and convince you of something that may not be true. I did see some reason for some of this concern in his message. Although I agreed with the general message, the way he expounded on his views was not always in line with my views. Perhaps the biggest thing that caught my ear was his seemingly ignorance of the Old Testament. He pretty much said that in the Old Testament "God’s plan was not working. It was getting about halftime, and God knew He needed to try something different. Moses didn’t work- nor David, Jonah, or Abraham. God sent in a new quarterback, Jesus, to save the way. Now it is a sure win." In some regards this sounds good. However we should remember that Moses, David, Jonah, and Abraham were not merely attempts by God to save a fallen people. These prepared the way for Christ. They were Biblical and providentially planned typologies pointing to Jesus Christ. It was not as if "God’s plan was not working." Nothing catches God off guard, nor does He have to ponder on a new "plan." Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that Jesus is much greater than a quarterback. He is our Savior, perhaps you could say, "coach." [A good book to read on the typologies of the prophets and Old Testament stories would be "A House For My Name" written by Dr. Peter Leithart].
As far as Matt Pitt quoting from Scripture, he did a little bit, but not much. He seemed to do something along the lines of "Hebrews 8 tells us that…" When he would read directly from Scripture, he seemed to use a translation I was not aware of. It may have been a good translation, but I am somewhat skeptical of some newer translations.
There were a few things in the message that I did not feel really "belonged." He seemed somewhat mildly silly at times. I don’t have anything wrong with somewhat being funny in a sermon occasionally, but he seemed to try being funny a pretty good bit (maybe it’s me, but not much of it was funny to me anyway). He would say some edgy things, and then use the phrase, "I’m sorry God forgive me" almost in the same way that comedian Larry the Cable Guy would use it. He also seemed to bring people to the idea that if someone criticizes The Basement for anything, whether the rap, or whatever, that we should "rejoice because we are being persecuted for righteousness sake." We should rejoice for righteousness sake when our common faith in Jesus Christ is being attacked, but any church or corporate gathering of Saints should be open to reform. It is by reform that has given the church many victories of the past (Nicene Creed, Protestant Reformation to name a couple).
Still, the bulk of his message was good: we should be on God’s team, because He is the mastermind with the master plan. I was also glad to hear that Matt Pitt, as well as others, encouraged people to attend a church elsewhere. This, I believe, is essential to Christian living. However to know where we are at today (he repeatedly mentioned that he wanted to give a message relative to our time, which is good), and how we should live, we need both a vision and a retrospect. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and those without a vision do not know what to live for.
After the message, people would come down and give more praise to God, but this time not through rap, but more contemporary Christian soft rock. Personally, I still think that hymns are better for corporate worship, but I do believe that there is a place for this. I think that the lifting of hands here was more genuine than the dancing on the rap that says "We’re getting crunk at The Basement" and "Jesus is my rock star." Of course, only God can be the absolute judge of this.
In closing, there were some good things about The Basement, but I still have my general concerns. I do not know Matt Pitt personally, so I cannot claim to be a good witness to his personal life. However continue to guard whatever he says with the Word of God. In doing this, though, do not assume that if he quotes Scripture, he is definitely right. Consider the verse in the context in which it is written, and whether or not his interpretation seems consistent and truthful. I also encourage you to not let The Basement be your only source of Christian knowledge and wisdom and worship. Attend a church elsewhere, if at all possible. Read your Bible personally. Do not forsake the assembly of Christian saints. I do not think it would be right for me to tell you not to attend The Basement just because I don’t like the rap that is there. There are many people who give true praise to God, and if they do that, then I’m sure that God is pleased for that. Even if The Basement has faults in it, I believe that God can use anything to give glory to His name, and to complete His plan- His plan that is working, and as we all know through faith, will work.
What do you think?
Ryan
Friday, August 31, 2007
War Eagle!!
With college football just now beginning, I think I would like to give a big WAR EAGLE!!! to all those reading! I think Auburn should be fairly decent this year. Who knows, maybe this can be a championship year! All my waiting for Auburn to kick off is now coming down to just tommorow. Anyway, this is short, but I thought I'd give a big War Eagle to all those out there. Hey Bama, fear the other thumb!! Let's get six straight! War Eagle!
Ryan
Ryan
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Ryan Hampton Supports...
We are about five months away to the primaries of the Presidential elections, and many people have already decided who they will vote for. I will be a first-time voter myself, and I have been trying to make the right decision as to who I will vote for. No, I have not tirelessly read and researched every single candidate of every single party in full detail, but I have put at least some thought into who will receive my first official vote I cast for being President of The United States of America.
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
I have finally decided who I will give my official support to. This candidate has seemed better than any of the others from the very beginning I started studying of him. He is pro-life, and is a Christian. He is for a limited, Constitutional Government. His voting record is perhaps the most consistent of those running. His stance of immigration has been strong and consistent: essentially, to secure our borders. He is a protector of states rights, and is for low taxes. He also wants America independent of global government.
This candidate, though, is stuck in no-where’s land politically. Not many conservatives like him (even though he claims to be the most conservative of those running). Not many Democrats like him either, nor do many Libertarians. He would probably fall best in line with the Constitutionalist Party, but he is running as a Republican.
This candidate is Congressman Ron Paul, from Texas. His stance on the war has made him not very popular among Republicans. A lot of what many conservatives would want the Federal Government to do, Paul advocates it to be done by State Government because of Federalism. These nit-picky gripes conservatives make at Paul keep him from gaining attention as the strongest upholder of the Constitution.
An interesting topic is the gold standard of money. Hardly any politician today would claim to want to go to the gold standard. But Ron Paul does. Many people consider this too radical or too "out there," but Ron Paul has good points. If we base our money currency standard off of nothing but meaningless paper, then it is essentially as if the Government can buy anything on a credit card. Our next generation must pay for that credit card bill. If we base our money currency policy off of gold- something that is scarce and has real value in and of itself- then we have a real backing for anything anyone- especially the government itself- buys and trades for.
Perhaps the biggest concern conservatives and Republicans have toward Paul is his stance on the war. I have questioned it myself. I have never considered myself anti-war, even in regards to this war. But Paul has, and given the fact that there are lives on the line in the war, I have considered carefully the war as in issue to help determine who wins my votes. But I do not think that Paul is against catching terrorists who do harm to our country. He simply holds the foreign policy held by none other than our founders: to stay out of foreign entanglements when at all possible. Catching the enemy is one thing, and an important thing- being a moral police to the entire world is quite another. In the past we have given money and/or support to those who seemed to be our friends, but turned against us (such as Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Ron Paul also defends his beliefs on the war not on political benefits as many Democrats, but on the Constitution. War should be declared by Congress Constitutionally. In this case, it was mostly the President who declared war. Furthermore, Ron Paul is for national security- even if not in an all-out war on Iraq. The first step to national security is to secure your borders- something Ron Paul is a strong advocate of. War comes only after that. Ron Paul would be for catching the terrorists- just not making an all-out war on nearly every nation in all of the Middle East or Eastern Civilization. But beyond all of this, war (certainly this war) is a complicated issue. I do not think that any one person who will be reading this could give me a definite account of what we should do. If you have been to war, then God bless you, and you probably know more than many people. But even those who have gone to war have different opinions. I might have to place my trust in a politician on the matter- because I do not know the full details of the war. I only have to go by my philosophy to war, and the little I can see of it. I do not like placing my trust in politicians, but Ron Paul is probably the most trustworthy of those who are running for President.
I have considered other candidates. Fred Thompson might be the best of those who actually stand a good shot at winning (the chances of Paul winning are small). His speech on Federalism seemed like a breath of fresh air compared to what I hear many politicians say. Mike Huckabee brings forth a good traditional conservative Christian approach, which is missing in politics today. Giuliani may be one of the best leaders who will be running (although some of this may be stereotype and not completely true). Tom Tancredo is for tough immigration laws, and seems to be in favor of school choice. Sam Brownback made some speeches on morality in politics that seemed pretty good and fair to say, and consistent within my views. But Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, fair, and Constitutional person running for President.
Until any further notice, Ryan Hampton, and his blog, From The Mind of Ryan Hampton, will be a supporter of Republican Congressmen Ron Paul of Texas, as the next President of the United States of America.
Check out my blog at http://www.ryanhampton.blogspot.com/
Check out Ron Paul's website at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Thank you.
What do you think?
August 28, 2007
God Bless America
Ryan
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
The Evolution of a New Species: The Body of Christ
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book, The Origin of Species by Natural Selection in order to change the way we view modern science. Little did he know that his same logic could be used to take a deeper look at the way we view the world in light of God’s plan. Sound extreme? Probably so, but let’s take a look and see.
Darwin’s theory, for the general gist of it, is held by many evolutionary scientists today (although I would disagree with it generally myself). This is not to say that Darwin would fit perfectly with any scientist today, but his general theories are held by many scientist who believe in the origin of species by evolutionary means. But what are his theories, and how do they in any way affect Christian theology?
Basically, Darwin defended his views on mutations and natural selection. His theories assumed the existence of one already living cell capable of reproduction. Generally, this reproducing cell would reproduce in its likeness, but not a completely perfect copy. The genes may be slightly different, but overall, the general makeup of what made this cell what it was would fall into the same order as its parent cell. But the theory would say that once in a while, a mutation occurs, which would slightly alter who this creature was. Still, one single mutation would not completely change who this creature was. Mutations happen today. Being blind, being mute, and being deaf, can all be from mutations. Most mutations are bad, resulting in less reproduction from these creatures (survival of the fittest). However very occasionally, says Darwin, someone will inherit a good mutation, capable of survival and reproduction.
Still, one mutation is a long way from being considered a different creature. Darwin would claim that after a "good" mutation, this creature would reproduce with another creature of its general kind- whether they hold the mutation or not (probably not), and pass it on to some of its future generations. Darwin says that after a whole lot of small mutations that are capable of survival and reproduction, a new creature would form. Natural selection would decide what mutations are capable of reproduction, and what would simply die out.
I believe that there are many flaws in this logic when applied to explain the world today, but that is for another blog. For now, we have said enough about biological evolution, and it is time to look to spiritual evolution.
This "Spiritual evolution" could happen in your own personal life. You could come across a lot of bad things that are all brought to naught by God, and inherit only the good things, and then become closer to God. But that is not really what I want to get at. What if we applied this logic to God’s Kingdom at large?
What if through the life of the Body of Christ, we went through many bad "mutations" that all died away. What if we would sometimes inherit a good mutation that would last forever? No matter how many bad mutations the Body may encounter over the years, this logic would suggest that the good would eventually prevail. What if this went on for a long time, and eventually brought the Church closer to God? Could this happen?
Our Christian culture today rejects this today for two reasons. For one, we are obsessed with the end times idea, and for two, we are obsessed with the idea that the world must get worse, because of the troubles it has today. Essentially, impatience is at the key to rejecting the idea of "Spiritual evolution" I presented above.
There is a difference in this kind of obsession with the end times, and the looking forward to Jesus’ return that Scripture tells us to do. We should look to the end of the world, when one day all of God’s saints will be gathered together to give praise to God on high, and all evil will perish away in death and hell. One day we will have new bodies, and be made as the Body of Christ should be made. Today, though, we seem to assume that that day must be soon. We seem to lose faith in the fact that God can and will bring all evil to naught as He tells us in the Scripture (particularly the Psalms). To some Christians today, it is as if the world is getting worse and God will just give up on it.
The way biological evolutionists look to the future with wonder should be the way Christians look to the future in wonder- only in light of the Gospel. Darwinists wonder at what the world will be like millions of years from now and how evolution would direct the way. Christians should be in awe at the progress of the world, and what it could be like millions of years from now with God leading the way. It seems odd to think that the world will still be here in five-hundred thousand years from now- but for all we know, it could be. We really don’t know.
What if this blog plants one very small mutation in just one of its readers? What if this person then go and plant the same mutation in someone else. What if they plant another mutation in me, or anyone else- that I or whoever received that mutation could then go plant the same mutation in someone else? I speak in terms of spiritual mutations, not biological mutations.
It does seem as if the world is in a very low and confused state right now. It has been only in the last one-hundred years that we have entered into world wars, and it seems as if nearly all the countries are at some war now- including the very nation I live in. How could this be God’s plan? How could God bring good from this? We should realize that pretty much ever since the beginning of civilization nations have risen and fallen, and entered war with other nations. There was war- sometimes Holy war- that is recorded for us in the Old Testament. All of these wars end, but God’s Word never does. It is possible that America could one day fall, and that many more nations could assume their places in the world. Perhaps, just perhaps, we are only in the baby stages of history. To me, that is just as exiting as being in the last days of history. Ultimately, though, we really don’t know- which probably makes it even more exiting!
If what was said has validity to it, then perhaps it is the little things that bring forth the most revival. Even such revival movements and reforms, both Christian and otherwise, have not originated from attempted revival and reform, but through years of people doing the little, but most important things. The Protestant Reformation and The Great Awakening both originated because people began to take a deeper and more personal look at the Word of God, and because people began to have a stronger fear and reverence of the Lord, and place Him above all other things. There is nothing wrong with intended revival, but perhaps the best revival comes from unintended revival- when God’s people put a stronger emphasis on God and His Word.
Jeremy Sexton, Pastor-in-training at Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, Alabama, puts this well. In a recent sermon, he said (paraphrased), "Husbands and Fathers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your wife- even in your private thoughts, and by training your children in the way they should go; wives and Mothers, you can crush Satan’s head by staying loyal to your husbands- even in your own private and secret thoughts and desires, and by assisting your husband in training your children in the way they should go; children, you can crush Satan’s head by obeying and honoring your Father and your Mother as Scripture commands; furthermore, everyone can crush Satan’s head by entering into weekly covenant renewal service with the Lord their God." As Sexton points out, it are these basic- but very important- things that ultimately will reach the Gospel to the ends of the earth. As the Reverend Rich Lusk has pointed out, "Your actions are the ultimate apologetic [defense] for the faith."
So in closing, I encourage you to study God’s Word for yourself, focus on the little, but most important things. Making an attempt at a revival is fine- but you should first lead by example and have personal revival with God. Part of this personal revival means fellowship with other Christians. Going to church is an essential aspect to crushing Satan’s head. Satan hates it when all of God’s people are singing to God on high. He’s jealous. He’s angry. However it is when we lose faith- believing that it must take all of God’s strength all at once to crush Satan’s head- when Satan and all his company are happy. God is winning the war even now. Even if it takes thousands of years more of spiritual evolution in the church, the Body of Christ will be made the way God wants it. This is not Satan’s world but it is God’s world. Let’s live that way!
What do you think?
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
