Karl Marx, in his Communist Manifesto, summarized all people into two broad categories: the oppressed and the oppressor. For this reason, he offered his communist ideology to the world to end profit maximization and the exploitation of the poor. Since this time, those who hold to his philosophy, whether by name or ideology, have ignorantly classified capitalism as an economic policy of greed and exploitation. Capitalism, they presume, must encourage the "oppressed vs. oppressor" and "slave vs. slave master" world, because it is in capitalism that greedy men who only want profits abuse the honest individuals. In the 1980's, many capitalists began taking this as a compliment. Capitalism is about greed, they confessed, but this greed is a good thing. Without greed, they suggested, economies cannot grow and flourish.
Although certain elements of the "greed is good" philosophy are true and do help a society prosper economically, greed is not really what capitalism is all about. Sure, the "greedy" man, who desires to maximize profit, will hire the most labor, make the riskiest yet smartest investments, acquire the most capital, etc. And, from the positive side of this "greed," without this entrepreneur doing these things, he would not have the revenue to hire his workers (even if they are of cheap labor) or give the good workers raises. Nonetheless, it is the greedy men who ultimately fail in a capitalist economy.
In order to have real economic growth, investments must be made. This, of course, means investments of all kinds - not simply the rigid definition of investing in the stock market, gold, etc., although these investments are included. College students invest their time and money into college with the hopes of earning a good job after completing their higher education. Entrepreneurs invest in land, labor, and capital with the hopes that it will provide them with more revenue than costs, thus leading to profit maximization. Ideally, citizens invest a small portion (again, ideally) of their income to the government so that their rights will be better protected than if they were left to fend for themselves in anarchy. Everyday, investments of all varieties are made. There are two types of investments: efficient investments and inefficient investments.
The wise and diligent man makes efficient investments. He studies the economy, knows his abilities and inabilities, plants his seed, and follows through. The inefficient investor does not. He may make investments which are unwise, or, he may fail to make investments that he should make. Either scenario is fueled by his greed. On the one hand, he assumes that any investment he makes will be profitable simply because his name is on it. On the other hand, he is too lazy to make investments. His greed suffocates him and he then believes he can beat the economy without playing by the rules. The greedy man may be one who wants so much profit that he continually invests and is given nothing to show for it. He may avoid what he sees as hard-work in being employed by another already-existing entrepreneur and ignorantly open a business doomed to fail. Another greedy man may choose not to invest in labor and provide jobs. His greed, which tells him he can do all the tasks on his own, will soon fail him. The diligent men and women who make efficient investments provide jobs, invest in research and development, and, at the end of the day, only stay in business because they provide a good or service the world needs. These successes come from the diligent people - not those fueled only by greed.
A common mistake a lot of students of economics make is to see wealth as simply a piece of pie. Wealth and the world's recourses are limited and scarce - this is a fundamental truth to economics - but it is not as if one man's success comes at the expense of someone else. All this means is that the successful man has more efficiently dealt with the scarce recourses the world has, which in turn, raises the standard of living for everybody. The only reason the successful man is successful is because he gives a good or service at an affordable price to plenty of people. In his success, he may also give to the poor and needy through a charity or church, higher more workers to work for him, and place his money back into the market by his desire for goods and services. Therefore, capitalism can be as communal of an economic system as it is an individualist one, and it is energized not by greed, but by knowing the needs and desires of fellow men and women.
What do you think?
God bless America
August 2, 2010
Ryan Hampton
Monday, August 2, 2010
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Case Closed: Experts tell us Obama's Citezenship is no Longer a Debate
With the heated debate over Obama's citezenship weighing heavy in the media recently, political experts have come to investigate whether or not the One is a true American and our rightful President. Although we should never lose faith in the One, it is important to be fair and give insightful responses to the complaints and arguments of those who deny the Hope offered now to all Americans. So, what did the experts conclude?
"We have yet to make a complete conclusion of Obama's native home," said Nancy Gore, President of HIYLO (Honk If You Love Obama), "but we have found that irrelevent right now." That sounded a big strong of a statement. What about our Constitution, or our American values? She was questioned further and continued. "You see, Obama offers hope not to just Americans but the entire world. He is a citizen to a world, not just America. As long as he was born on this earth, then the case is closed."
However some argue the case may not be as closed as it seems. Ted Kerry, who is also on the Obama's Citezenship committe and author of "Learning to Give Full Praise to Obama in the Midst of a Recession," said "I am not sure that Obama is even of this earth." Perhaps that is why we cannot find his birth records. "Still," said Kerry, "Even if he is not of this earth, we may should just have faith in Him as the Emperor of the world."
"What about our Constitution, and the rules for office of President" someone from our panel asked Hillary Edwards. Edwards responded "The Constitution did have its place and we mustn't forget that. However Obama has come to fulfil the Constitution and we mustn't forget that either. The Old Way, the Constitution, paved the way for the One, Barack Obama Who has come to set the weak and vulnerable free."
So whether or not his birth cirtificate says "United States of America" or not, we concluded, it doesn't really matter. The case is clOsed.
"We have yet to make a complete conclusion of Obama's native home," said Nancy Gore, President of HIYLO (Honk If You Love Obama), "but we have found that irrelevent right now." That sounded a big strong of a statement. What about our Constitution, or our American values? She was questioned further and continued. "You see, Obama offers hope not to just Americans but the entire world. He is a citizen to a world, not just America. As long as he was born on this earth, then the case is closed."
However some argue the case may not be as closed as it seems. Ted Kerry, who is also on the Obama's Citezenship committe and author of "Learning to Give Full Praise to Obama in the Midst of a Recession," said "I am not sure that Obama is even of this earth." Perhaps that is why we cannot find his birth records. "Still," said Kerry, "Even if he is not of this earth, we may should just have faith in Him as the Emperor of the world."
"What about our Constitution, and the rules for office of President" someone from our panel asked Hillary Edwards. Edwards responded "The Constitution did have its place and we mustn't forget that. However Obama has come to fulfil the Constitution and we mustn't forget that either. The Old Way, the Constitution, paved the way for the One, Barack Obama Who has come to set the weak and vulnerable free."
So whether or not his birth cirtificate says "United States of America" or not, we concluded, it doesn't really matter. The case is clOsed.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Trinity Presbyterian Church's Move to Cahaba Heights
Just in case any of you have not heard, we received our CO (Certificate of Occupancy) yesterday afternoon, and will begin meeting weekly at our new building in Cahaba Heights, a suburb of Vestavia Hills, Alabama. This has been a while forth coming, yet it has also not been overly dragged. It did take a lot of work, but it does seem the Lord is rewarding our efforts.
The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.
Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.
Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.
We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.
It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.
I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.
It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.
In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 16, 2009
Ryan Hampton
The first thing we should do is give God glory and thanks for this opportunity to now own our own building. We have of course, owned our own building before, at 1401 Montgomery Highway in Vestavia. Overtime, we began to slowly descend into nothing. It was as if the Lord made us start over, almost, though certainly not entirely, from scratch.
Shortly after voting in favor of continuing the congregation instead of closing doors, several new families joined. Before we realized it, God gave us the gift/curse of outgrowing our facilities. Fortunately, the Lord gave us Berney Points Baptist Church to be a good and beneficial host to us. And not only did BPBC help us, but in certain ways, we probably helped them.
Now, after renting the facilities of BPBC for some four and a half years (give or take), we have worshipped for the last time at BPBC. We now have our own building once again. This is a gift for us. Many of the members of our congregation have never been able to worship at our church while having our own facilities.
We must ask what this means for us now. Because God has given us this blessing, we must use it to bless others. We must begin learning geography as well as Christology. In size, the building may be similar to that at 1401, but the location is vastly different. We are not off a major highway in a bustling Vestavia Hills. Nor are we a church with no sign that sits right off the interstate, but detached from a real city or community. Now, we have our sign, and we are a representative of a community. We do not represent CREC churches as much now. We are not as much of a global church known for its theology. We are a community church known for its love for that community.
It is easy, though maybe not as much now as used to be, to find Baptist churches that represented a community. It is not hard to find plenty of FBC’s around as you roam from city to city through the South. While we have a fun time naming our churches after Reformers or Reformed ideas, it is often hard to find a FPC, and even when we do, it is not the face of the community. My point is that often times churches like ours are known more for theology than community, and many Baptist churches, for example, are known more for community.
I am not trying to degrade the importance of theology, and I believe there are things we bring to the Kingdom that many other denominations do not. And since hiring Pastor Lusk, community has been a major theme of our church. And most people who visit our church can see that. Even before Pastor Lusk came, we had a form of community not many other churches had. I remember one of my first impressions upon our first visit to RHPC (former name of TPC) when I was ten was that the people were nice. Now, the Lord is giving us this building and this community, so that our love flows out from within just our congregation, to the wider community. It is time people like me use our hands and fingers for things other than posting theology on the internet. Instead of focusing on growing our minds by what we take in, it is time we focus on growing our hearts by what we give out.
It is easy for Presbyterian churches, through their form of church government, to be connected with another Presbyterian church five states away, yet hard to be really connected with the community. I even see this within our congregation. I hear so much about Jim Jordan’s church and Jeffrey Myers’ church, or about the works of Peter Leithardt and Douglas Wilson. I hear about CCB or about our sponsored church St. Marks in Tennessee. I’m sure with great reason, and I’m not by any means speaking against the Presbyterian form of church government. But are we known more just within our CREC Presbyterian group, or for being a blessing to the community we are in? I’m sure the same could be asked for many other churches like ours nationwide. Are we known for critiquing the other churches of this city because they don’t share our liturgy, or are we known for working with them to accomplish the same goals we have: to do the will of God and advance His Kingdom? Will we be known more for the blessing we are to Cahaba Heights, or for the blessing we are to CREC Presbyterian theology?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying we need to take over the Cahaba Heights community and make a monopoly on the churches. There are other churches in the community as well, and they may doing a great job. But we need to take the community we have with each other, and share it with the wider community. Nor am I saying I think we have a lot to change if we are to do a good job at the goals listed above. I believe God has been preparing us for this, and would not give us this building if we were not ready. But I am saying we should not take this for granted, nor only look at the benefits it gives us (not paying rent, not having a time to be out, better acoustics, not having people fuss about our little children). Those are great, but we should look at this as a new and better way to spread the Kingdom, first to Cahaba Heights, and then to Birmingham, and throughout the entire earth. “Presbyterian” should become more of an adjective for the noun (and perhaps even verb?) “Church,” instead of a noun within itself. I’ve heard it was mentioned we could take out the word “Presbyterian” from our name and just be “Trinity Church.” While I don’t think this is completely necessary or helpful, I am glad we are seeming to focus more on what it means to be a church than what it means to be Presbyterian.
In all ways, we should thank God for this new building we will worship in tomorrow. We should also thank Him for giving us BPBC for a while. It has been helpful. I am also personally thankful for the men and women in the church who helped make this possible. I did very little helping compared to some people in the church. We should also expect some stress to come in the first several weeks or so, until we get fully moved in and situated. I will probably be at BPBC in the morning for the first fifteen minutes or so of service to direct any misguided members or visitors to our new building. I look forward to coming for the second half of the service at our new building tomorrow morning.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 16, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Friday, May 1, 2009
Holy War - Redemption - Maturity
Holy War – Redemption – Maturity. These are the three themes we see in the Bible, and they all go together. I want to speak about each of these.
I carefully ordered these three. Really, Holy War is the first and third of these. It is through Holy War that we are redeemed, and through Holy War that we, as God’s redeemed People, mature. God wages Holy War to save those Whom He has elected, and we His People, wage Holy War in our hearts so that Christ may work in us and bring us to maturity.
In the beginning, there was no real official Holy War. Actually, perhaps it should not be said so much that God wages Holy War, as it is Satan who wages it. Satan rebelled against God. This was the first act of war. God gave him a home called Hell, and God began to create a home for His People. But yet again, Satan waged Holy War, targeting the chief of God’s creation, man.
After Satan won this battle, God exercised just war against the enemy. This just war was not aimed at destruction, but redemption. While Satan had his own strategy, God had the better strategy: redeeming His People.
Throughout the entire Old Testament we see pictures of this. Satan would wage an attack, and God would come back and put Satan down in His place. As God put Satan down and brought His People up, He redeemed them. He did this on the ark and at the Red Sea. Finally, God redeemed His People through the cross of Christ and has promised to come again to complete that work.
War is going on. Now God calls on His People to fight in the war. This does not mean that Christians should wage national war on a country because they do not officially confess Christ as King. This means that the Christian, on an individual level, and the church on a corporate level, fights against sin. It means we are called to hate sin and pray for our sin to be damned. It means that we cut off our eye if it causes us to sin (Matt. 5:29). It means you cut off your internet chord if that causes you to sin. It means you pray against sin. It means you join with the Assembly of the Saints in worship. It means you forgive those who sinned against you, because that is the only way for your sin to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15).
As we wage this Holy War, Christ brings us to maturity. Although creation was created good, man was still called to maturity. Adam had the task of watching over and protecting Eve. This protection was a protection for any kind of evil that could come. Although the earth was good, it was still vulnerable, as we see in Genesis 3. Perhaps on a smaller and different level, Adam and Eve were called to win the Holy War that Satan waged in Heaven. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have continued to mature into a state of invulnerability of evil, and thus, won the war. That invulnerability of sin is what God wants to bring us to through Christ, the new Adam.
How long will we mature? Perhaps for eternity. Even in Final Resurrected glory, when God’s Kingdom is no longer vulnerable, we will perhaps have places to mature. Granted, if sin is not vulnerable, we will have won the war, and we will mature in other ways. But until sin is fully defeated, we are called to fight in this Holy War so that it may bring us to maturity and final Redemption with the return of Christ. Christ is the new Adam, and so the Church must be the new Eve. Christ was a better Adam. So we must be a better Eve.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
I carefully ordered these three. Really, Holy War is the first and third of these. It is through Holy War that we are redeemed, and through Holy War that we, as God’s redeemed People, mature. God wages Holy War to save those Whom He has elected, and we His People, wage Holy War in our hearts so that Christ may work in us and bring us to maturity.
In the beginning, there was no real official Holy War. Actually, perhaps it should not be said so much that God wages Holy War, as it is Satan who wages it. Satan rebelled against God. This was the first act of war. God gave him a home called Hell, and God began to create a home for His People. But yet again, Satan waged Holy War, targeting the chief of God’s creation, man.
After Satan won this battle, God exercised just war against the enemy. This just war was not aimed at destruction, but redemption. While Satan had his own strategy, God had the better strategy: redeeming His People.
Throughout the entire Old Testament we see pictures of this. Satan would wage an attack, and God would come back and put Satan down in His place. As God put Satan down and brought His People up, He redeemed them. He did this on the ark and at the Red Sea. Finally, God redeemed His People through the cross of Christ and has promised to come again to complete that work.
War is going on. Now God calls on His People to fight in the war. This does not mean that Christians should wage national war on a country because they do not officially confess Christ as King. This means that the Christian, on an individual level, and the church on a corporate level, fights against sin. It means we are called to hate sin and pray for our sin to be damned. It means that we cut off our eye if it causes us to sin (Matt. 5:29). It means you cut off your internet chord if that causes you to sin. It means you pray against sin. It means you join with the Assembly of the Saints in worship. It means you forgive those who sinned against you, because that is the only way for your sin to be forgiven (Matt. 6:14-15).
As we wage this Holy War, Christ brings us to maturity. Although creation was created good, man was still called to maturity. Adam had the task of watching over and protecting Eve. This protection was a protection for any kind of evil that could come. Although the earth was good, it was still vulnerable, as we see in Genesis 3. Perhaps on a smaller and different level, Adam and Eve were called to win the Holy War that Satan waged in Heaven. If Adam and Eve had not fallen, they would have continued to mature into a state of invulnerability of evil, and thus, won the war. That invulnerability of sin is what God wants to bring us to through Christ, the new Adam.
How long will we mature? Perhaps for eternity. Even in Final Resurrected glory, when God’s Kingdom is no longer vulnerable, we will perhaps have places to mature. Granted, if sin is not vulnerable, we will have won the war, and we will mature in other ways. But until sin is fully defeated, we are called to fight in this Holy War so that it may bring us to maturity and final Redemption with the return of Christ. Christ is the new Adam, and so the Church must be the new Eve. Christ was a better Adam. So we must be a better Eve.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless the Church
May 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Worship Services
Many seeker-friendly church services give us a sermon that ends something like this: “If there is anyone here who has not accepted Christ, you may do so now. Every head bowed and every eye closed, raise your hand if you want to accept Christ.” There is a place for this language and it is great if it leads someone to Christ. But I’m not for sure this is what the purpose of a sermon is.
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Many people get scared off by the word liturgy because it seems to replace the heart of Christian worship with text and empty recitations. Certainly, the heart of worship should not be seen as meaningless, and certainly a passionate charismatic worshipper worships God more truly than a Reformed worshipper going through the motions of worship with no real meaning or connection. But I also believe that nearly every church has some form of liturgy, in the sense of order to worship. The question becomes how deep, meaningful, relevant, and ultimately, Biblically sound the liturgy is.
While faithfully attending my church Trinity Presbyterian Church (CREC), I have been privileged to see other church services from other churches, primarily Church of the Highlands, where I go with some friends Sunday evenings. It is nice to see the worship services of other local churches who aim to lift high the cross. I don’t expect every church to have the same structure as ours, and that is okay even though I like our order and structure, which makes it both formal and personable. Church of the Highlands is seeker friendly and has done a lot for the Kingdom and I enjoy the sermons by Chris Hodges. But it seems that a lot of these churches end with the “every head bowed every eye closed” style, and despite being aggressive and seeker friendly, I am not sure they do as much for the Kingdom as a deeper liturgical service would.
Both Trinity Presbyterian and Church of the Highlands have an order to the service. Church of the Highlands has about twenty-five minutes of contemporary Christian music, followed by a sermon that always ends in the same seeker friendly way. After this there is offering and the service is pretty much over. Our service goes much deeper in its order and probably exemplifies the Church’s life more fully. We are called into worship. We confess our sins. We have the reading of Scripture and a sermon. We give our tithes and offerings. We confess our faith. We participate in the Lord’s Supper. We are called forth into the world to live out the Great Commission. This becomes more relevant to the Christian life. It is more consistent with God’s covenants He has made with His People. Sermons lead us into applications and ultimately into further communion with Christ by eating at His table. Each layer leads and flows into the next.
We go to Church to be the Church and renew covenant with God. We win the lost by being the Church everywhere else. When a non-believer steps into Church, they should see the Church in covenant with God, not be pressured into “making a decision.” Scripture does not give us much detail on worship services. But it seems the pattern is something like this: someone is converted, they are given the teaching of the Word, and then they eat and fellowship with other believers. Sometimes, yes, they are converted by the preaching of the Word, but once they enter the church, they are given Word and Sacrament (Sacrament follows the preaching).
There is a time to preach and offer salvation to others and it is good to see churches like Church of the Highlands have the heart to do that. And certainly going to church is a place where salvation should be offered. But I don’t think the modern approach and liturgy is always the best way. While these seeker friendly churches probably do a better job than we do at really reaching out to others on a personal level (which should certainly be commended), they often fail more at really keeping faithful Christians who keep covenant with God. Beyond this, non-believers are often more drawn into a deeper and richer liturgical service because they are able to see the richer side of the Christian faith. It grows on them. They don’t feel pressured into anything.
With all of this said, I wish the Church could ultimately become a Church that is seeker friendly and offers salvation to the lost and is good at keeping faithful Christians who mature in the faith. Often churches have one and not the other. But the point of our worship service is not to strategize how we will win the lost, nor is it a place where we even necessarily directly attempt to win the lost. It is where we keep covenant with God. I do think that more Reformed and deeper liturgical services could do better at having more mission trips and really reaching the lost in ways similar to many contemporary seeker-friendly churches. I wish seeker-friendly churches would broaden and deeper their worship services into a real place of covenant renewal service for God’s People, to train and equip Christians to be faithful to their King.
What do you think?
God bless the Church
God bless America
March 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Monday, March 2, 2009
Why You Should Go to Church
I want to ask the simple question of why one should go to church. Can't you just be a good Christian without going to church every week? Isn't that legalistic? This could be asked from multiple vantage points or points of departure, so this look is just one of those. However I do believe all of the different points of departure I have used are related and build off each other. It doesn’t make this any less valid.
I will look at it from the perspective of the Church corporate being the Bride of Christ. Or perhaps you could say, we are currently engaged to Christ, awaiting the actual marriage that will happen in the last day as we enter into Final Resurrection glory. Each one of us are sons of God individually, but a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ.
Usually when people are planning on getting married, they go on dates. If they didn’t ever see each other, their relationship would be thin, and marriage may not be the best of ideas. In the same way, we who are to be married to Christ, should not cut off communion with each other and Christ. We must have our “dates” with Christ, which takes place each Lord’s Day in church.
Christ does it the traditional way. He picks us up. Now true, it seems like we are the one’s driving to His House. But it is He Who calls us into His presence, takes charge, and brings us into the throne room of Heaven upon our confession of sin and His declared forgiveness. He comes near to us, to draw us into His presence. He invites us to His house for dinner at His table in communion. We do things for Christ such as give our praises, but it is primarily Him who takes charge and works in us, bringing out the best in His Bride elect. If you reject these things Christ does for you on a corporate level, how can you expect to have a real personal relationship with Him, or take parts in the fruits of His Kingdom after this life?
If you are out of the Church, don’t get down on yourself. Look at it as going on a date with your Groom – the Groom Who loves you enough to lay down His own life for you in the cruelest of ways. Come into Church not hoping for an emotional experience, but expecting God’s work to give you strength in all you do. One day we will live with Christ in His presence. For now we must accept and love the community He has given us now, and await the Final Resurrection glory we are promised to obtain in the Last Day through Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
March 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
I will look at it from the perspective of the Church corporate being the Bride of Christ. Or perhaps you could say, we are currently engaged to Christ, awaiting the actual marriage that will happen in the last day as we enter into Final Resurrection glory. Each one of us are sons of God individually, but a part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church – the Bride of Christ.
Usually when people are planning on getting married, they go on dates. If they didn’t ever see each other, their relationship would be thin, and marriage may not be the best of ideas. In the same way, we who are to be married to Christ, should not cut off communion with each other and Christ. We must have our “dates” with Christ, which takes place each Lord’s Day in church.
Christ does it the traditional way. He picks us up. Now true, it seems like we are the one’s driving to His House. But it is He Who calls us into His presence, takes charge, and brings us into the throne room of Heaven upon our confession of sin and His declared forgiveness. He comes near to us, to draw us into His presence. He invites us to His house for dinner at His table in communion. We do things for Christ such as give our praises, but it is primarily Him who takes charge and works in us, bringing out the best in His Bride elect. If you reject these things Christ does for you on a corporate level, how can you expect to have a real personal relationship with Him, or take parts in the fruits of His Kingdom after this life?
If you are out of the Church, don’t get down on yourself. Look at it as going on a date with your Groom – the Groom Who loves you enough to lay down His own life for you in the cruelest of ways. Come into Church not hoping for an emotional experience, but expecting God’s work to give you strength in all you do. One day we will live with Christ in His presence. For now we must accept and love the community He has given us now, and await the Final Resurrection glory we are promised to obtain in the Last Day through Jesus Christ.
What do you think?
God bless His Church
God bless you
March 1, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Friday, February 6, 2009
The Great Paradox
With the recent election of Barack Obama, conservative Christians mostly responded with a two-fold voice. This two-fold voice was not something that separated the conservative Christians in two groups; rather, it was a voice that ran down the middle of most conservative Christian individually.
This two-fold voice that spoke loud after it was announced that Obama was our Commander-in-Chief elect. The voice was something like this: “How could America elect such a man to the nation’s highest office” and “We must trust God because it was He Who put this man in office, and He did so with a reason.”
Both replies, I believe, have truth in them. The second is definitely true, and I believe for various reasons not pertaining to this blog that the first is a valid question. But the two may seem contradicting: if God was the One Who put this man in office, then how can we blame the American mob for electing him? Was it not in God’s plan that He would lean the hearts of the majority of Americans to Barack Obama?
Christians who were against Obama believe both that this was an American mistake and a Sovereign plan, because they essentially recognize this as a paradox. The Bible is full of paradoxes. How is Jesus both God and man? How is Jesus both God and the Son of God? How are there three persons in one God? How is God all-knowing, yet Scripture shows us certain emotions God feels at a certain time as if He did not see what was coming (the best example is perhaps God feeling sorry for creating the man in Gen. 6:6)? How is Mary both virgin and mother (no, not step Mother, but the one who gave birth to Christ)? The list could go on, but these are just obvious examples from Scripture. We must realize that these questions are answered in the supernatural world, not the world that our sinful ignorant hearts and minds can fathom.
Therefore, Christians against Obama find no problem in accepting this paradox of the election of the “wrong yet right” man. But this again is only the most recent obvious example. The attacks of September 11, 2001 could be a similar example. We trust that God is in control, yet we grieve with the evil that has taken place, and we feel anger toward those who caused the evil. Perhaps orthodox Christians do not understand this relationship, but they nevertheless accept both God’s Will and the responsibility of man.
But for some strange reason, we argue about this where it matters the most: our salvation. We cannot accept this as a paradox. For some Christians, the word “predestined” that Paul uses simply means “God always knew,” and some Christians on the other end ignore or twist the parts of Scripture that tell us Christ died for all, or we should preach God’s Word to all, etc. Why can we not simply accept God’s absolute Sovereignty in our salvation, while also keeping the existence of human free will? The two do not have to be in disconnect. The Bible teaches both, so both should be taught and accepted.
There may be some disagreements in emphasis, but that should be it. This should not be something that splits a church or calls one’s salvation into question (unless they are completely one-sided beyond any real orthodox teaching). Christ’s death was completely in the Sovereignty of God, yet those who put the nails into his body are not held guiltless. Sure we don’t understand. That’s fine. God does. In the same way, we should not hold the ones who reject Christ guiltless just because we see their rejection as predestined. Both human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God exist. Sure, I can’t explain it. But I cannot fully fathom (or even almost fathom) the Trinity, yet I believe it.
We can deepen our minds and try to fathom these paradoxes. Some people call that a waste of time, but I honestly don’t mind. Perhaps God in knowing what decisions mankind would make when left to their own will, places certain decisions in front of them, knowing their results, to carry out His plan. Perhaps God put a predestined plan in motion at the beginning, knowing what would happen through human choice, and then engages in the world with emotion by hiding certain things from Him at the beginning as well (where God has a free will and a sense of vulnerability that was predestined by God before the world began). I am not saying either of those views are correct completely or even to any degree at all. We don’t know, we can only exercise our minds in the paradox. But nonetheless, we must accept both God’s Sovereign plan and our responsibilities in every facet of life, even our own salvation.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
February 6, 2009
Ryan Hampton
This two-fold voice that spoke loud after it was announced that Obama was our Commander-in-Chief elect. The voice was something like this: “How could America elect such a man to the nation’s highest office” and “We must trust God because it was He Who put this man in office, and He did so with a reason.”
Both replies, I believe, have truth in them. The second is definitely true, and I believe for various reasons not pertaining to this blog that the first is a valid question. But the two may seem contradicting: if God was the One Who put this man in office, then how can we blame the American mob for electing him? Was it not in God’s plan that He would lean the hearts of the majority of Americans to Barack Obama?
Christians who were against Obama believe both that this was an American mistake and a Sovereign plan, because they essentially recognize this as a paradox. The Bible is full of paradoxes. How is Jesus both God and man? How is Jesus both God and the Son of God? How are there three persons in one God? How is God all-knowing, yet Scripture shows us certain emotions God feels at a certain time as if He did not see what was coming (the best example is perhaps God feeling sorry for creating the man in Gen. 6:6)? How is Mary both virgin and mother (no, not step Mother, but the one who gave birth to Christ)? The list could go on, but these are just obvious examples from Scripture. We must realize that these questions are answered in the supernatural world, not the world that our sinful ignorant hearts and minds can fathom.
Therefore, Christians against Obama find no problem in accepting this paradox of the election of the “wrong yet right” man. But this again is only the most recent obvious example. The attacks of September 11, 2001 could be a similar example. We trust that God is in control, yet we grieve with the evil that has taken place, and we feel anger toward those who caused the evil. Perhaps orthodox Christians do not understand this relationship, but they nevertheless accept both God’s Will and the responsibility of man.
But for some strange reason, we argue about this where it matters the most: our salvation. We cannot accept this as a paradox. For some Christians, the word “predestined” that Paul uses simply means “God always knew,” and some Christians on the other end ignore or twist the parts of Scripture that tell us Christ died for all, or we should preach God’s Word to all, etc. Why can we not simply accept God’s absolute Sovereignty in our salvation, while also keeping the existence of human free will? The two do not have to be in disconnect. The Bible teaches both, so both should be taught and accepted.
There may be some disagreements in emphasis, but that should be it. This should not be something that splits a church or calls one’s salvation into question (unless they are completely one-sided beyond any real orthodox teaching). Christ’s death was completely in the Sovereignty of God, yet those who put the nails into his body are not held guiltless. Sure we don’t understand. That’s fine. God does. In the same way, we should not hold the ones who reject Christ guiltless just because we see their rejection as predestined. Both human responsibility and the Sovereignty of God exist. Sure, I can’t explain it. But I cannot fully fathom (or even almost fathom) the Trinity, yet I believe it.
We can deepen our minds and try to fathom these paradoxes. Some people call that a waste of time, but I honestly don’t mind. Perhaps God in knowing what decisions mankind would make when left to their own will, places certain decisions in front of them, knowing their results, to carry out His plan. Perhaps God put a predestined plan in motion at the beginning, knowing what would happen through human choice, and then engages in the world with emotion by hiding certain things from Him at the beginning as well (where God has a free will and a sense of vulnerability that was predestined by God before the world began). I am not saying either of those views are correct completely or even to any degree at all. We don’t know, we can only exercise our minds in the paradox. But nonetheless, we must accept both God’s Sovereign plan and our responsibilities in every facet of life, even our own salvation.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
February 6, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Tough Economy May Be Good For The Church
Many people are worrying frantic over this tough economy in our nation today. Jobs are becoming less and less available, the value of the dollar is dropping worldwide, while we hold every penny in our pockets with precious value. The recent inauguration of Barack Obama has lead many to believe the economy is back on the rise, while leaving many others including myself worried that this is only the beginning.
But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.
Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.
With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
But perhaps what we need is a tough economy. While we have been so blessed for so long (and while even this economic downturn is not yet disastrous), it is good to be reminded of our fortune. The love of money is the root of all evil, and America has lived through several generations that have adored money.
Having riches is a good thing, so long as they are earned and used wisely. But not everyone in America earns their money in the way they should. Some are given riches by the government, some by theft, and some from their rich old man. Moreover, not everyone is rightfully thankful and content for what they have; some beg the government, the banks, or their parents for more. Meanwhile, these people learn nothing about the value of work, honesty, and a free market.
With this said, I welcome any economic downturn with optimism, an optimism that when we wake up and grow up, we will turn it back around. Perhaps we need a few tough years – or decades – to wake consumers and spoiled kids up and let them realize what they have. Then we can put higher value in things like family, friendship, education, love, hobbies, God-given talents, church, etc., instead of material wealth. In short, we can be content with what we have, but not in what we have given. We cannot serve two masters. We can serve only God or money. And if the money is not readily available to us, it may leave us with just one choice. And if that is the case, then I welcome any economic woes with full heart.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
January 27, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Our Hope and Community: The Story of the Bible
What is the story of the Bible? Is it a book of virtues? Is it a book of nice fables? Is it a book of law? It may be a book of virtues, filled with many stories, but the story of the Bible is much deeper than this.
All of history is one story. That is how we must look at all of history. The Bible is a historical book that gives us the history of what has happened, and a foreshadowing of what is to come. All of history is one giant myth made fact. It captures the essence of human desire, emotion, and longing through God’s eternal sovereign plan.
When we look at the beauty of this eternal sovereign plan, we see great similarity in many stories, myths, and fables we hold today. These stories we love so much, such as the Chronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Cinderella, etc., are all loved by us because they give us a story of hope, meaning, purpose, love, etc. But all of these stories find their fulfillment in God’s story, as captured to us in the Bible.
In Scripture, we see a pattern of one overall theme, and many mini-versions of that throughout. This is called typology. For instance, we see the overall theme that Adam sinned, and Jesus is the second Adam who comes to save us from our inherited sin in Adam. Along the way, we see people who point us back to Adam, or perhaps point us ahead to Christ. Noah points us to Christ in that he begins the world anew, as Christ comes to make us new. Noah is like a new Adam, and a picture of what the ultimate new Adam will be like. Moses reminds of Noah by being saved through the “ark,” the basket, over water, and then points us ahead to a deliverer by saving his people from Pharoah. There is the theme in Scripture, of being saved by water, wood, bread, etc., which point us to being saved by the waters of baptism and the tree that Christ was nailed to, and at the Lord’s table. There are many women who point us to Eve, or the new Eve, the Church. All in all, Scripture is about a man who comes to save His Bride, but in order to do so He must die for her. This man, the new Adam, is also God, and this Bride, the new Eve, is made of men and women of all generations and races. Simply an amazing story, and yet it is one-hundred percent true!
With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at Scripture. Scripture begins with creation, and God giving us a pattern. He created the world in six days, and rested on the Seventh. He then gave the chief of His creation, Adam, a task. His task would image what God had done: he would subdue the earth, and rest every seventh day. God saw it was not good for man to be alone, so He created a community for Adam, imaging God Himself, Who is a community of three persons. Now there is a community between all persons of God, and Adam, Eve, and all future generations. The community is found primarily in the Garden of Eden, and man is to complete his task through the land of Eden and in the outer lands.
But man fell and broke community with God, and was thus kicked out of the Garden, the central place of community. God kicked man out of the Garden, but did not give up on man, promising a new Adam. For the next some four thousand years, God used prophets to prepare the way for this new Adam, ultimately culminating in John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ. God kept some community with His People by making covenant with certain men. The new Garden was the Tabernacle, you could say, but only certain people could go inside, and only at certain times. The community was now just for God’s chosen People, the Israelites. God would show Himself to certain people in voice or even appearance, but the overall community that was present in the Garden was broken.
When Christ came, He restored some of that community. We now have church to go to weekly, on the Sabbath, the Day of Rest. We have the communion of the Saints. We have Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, etc. And now this community is for all people who chose Christ, and the Church is not only for Priests, or “super-holy” people. The Church is the new Israel, but not just for one nation. Our corporate church worship is a new picture of Adam’s community in the Garden of Eden with God.
There are those who have died, and have gone to Heaven. There is community there as well. And as we worship God in corporate worship, we worship with all Saints, and with all the company of Heaven. We get to take part in a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which we eat with Christ. We have much more Christian community with God then we realize. This is why going to church is important. It is where we keep covenant with God, share in His blessings, eat the daily bread He gives us, give our tithes and offerings to Him, etc. It is where we weekly renew covenant with God. This is where God first and foremost makes Himself known to us, so that we may go out and complete our tasks the rest of the week in our day-to-day lives.
Still, this is not the final goal. Nor is Heaven even the final goal. We still have our sinful nature. Heaven and earth may come together weekly. But even yet, there is still something missing. Although we come into Heaven’s presence, we do not see God, the angels, or the souls of those who have gone into Heaven. Heaven and earth are still two separate things. We have great community, but this, nor even Heaven, is our final hope.
Our final hope is in Final Resurrection glory. Heaven and earth will be one. Jesus will be King. There will not be a disconnect between our bodies and souls. We will have one good nature, and not our sinful nature. As many people in the Old Covenant prepared the way for Christ, so now we must prepare the way for the Final Resurrection. We do this by obeying the Great Commission, taking part in the community God has given us (which is the church), and preaching the Good News to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One day our community with God will be completely restored, and it will be even better than before the Fall. And we will have all of this forever!
But the first and foremost way to wait upon this final glory and community is to be thankful and partake in the glory and community we have now in Christ. Going to church is not something we do to win brownie points with God. It is where God makes Himself known. And if we forsake the assembly of the Saints now, then how do we expect God to let us into final glory? We must appreciate the story of the Bible more. Appreciate that we are God’s chosen People Who have been saved because our Groom, the Son of God Himself, died the death that the worst of sinners die. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of Christ and His Bride. This story should fill our hearts and minds with wonder, and cause us to look ahead, and prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
January 8, 2009
Ryan Hampton
All of history is one story. That is how we must look at all of history. The Bible is a historical book that gives us the history of what has happened, and a foreshadowing of what is to come. All of history is one giant myth made fact. It captures the essence of human desire, emotion, and longing through God’s eternal sovereign plan.
When we look at the beauty of this eternal sovereign plan, we see great similarity in many stories, myths, and fables we hold today. These stories we love so much, such as the Chronicals of Narnia, Harry Potter, Cinderella, etc., are all loved by us because they give us a story of hope, meaning, purpose, love, etc. But all of these stories find their fulfillment in God’s story, as captured to us in the Bible.
In Scripture, we see a pattern of one overall theme, and many mini-versions of that throughout. This is called typology. For instance, we see the overall theme that Adam sinned, and Jesus is the second Adam who comes to save us from our inherited sin in Adam. Along the way, we see people who point us back to Adam, or perhaps point us ahead to Christ. Noah points us to Christ in that he begins the world anew, as Christ comes to make us new. Noah is like a new Adam, and a picture of what the ultimate new Adam will be like. Moses reminds of Noah by being saved through the “ark,” the basket, over water, and then points us ahead to a deliverer by saving his people from Pharoah. There is the theme in Scripture, of being saved by water, wood, bread, etc., which point us to being saved by the waters of baptism and the tree that Christ was nailed to, and at the Lord’s table. There are many women who point us to Eve, or the new Eve, the Church. All in all, Scripture is about a man who comes to save His Bride, but in order to do so He must die for her. This man, the new Adam, is also God, and this Bride, the new Eve, is made of men and women of all generations and races. Simply an amazing story, and yet it is one-hundred percent true!
With this in mind, let’s take a brief look at Scripture. Scripture begins with creation, and God giving us a pattern. He created the world in six days, and rested on the Seventh. He then gave the chief of His creation, Adam, a task. His task would image what God had done: he would subdue the earth, and rest every seventh day. God saw it was not good for man to be alone, so He created a community for Adam, imaging God Himself, Who is a community of three persons. Now there is a community between all persons of God, and Adam, Eve, and all future generations. The community is found primarily in the Garden of Eden, and man is to complete his task through the land of Eden and in the outer lands.
But man fell and broke community with God, and was thus kicked out of the Garden, the central place of community. God kicked man out of the Garden, but did not give up on man, promising a new Adam. For the next some four thousand years, God used prophets to prepare the way for this new Adam, ultimately culminating in John the Baptist preparing the way for Christ. God kept some community with His People by making covenant with certain men. The new Garden was the Tabernacle, you could say, but only certain people could go inside, and only at certain times. The community was now just for God’s chosen People, the Israelites. God would show Himself to certain people in voice or even appearance, but the overall community that was present in the Garden was broken.
When Christ came, He restored some of that community. We now have church to go to weekly, on the Sabbath, the Day of Rest. We have the communion of the Saints. We have Jesus Christ, the Scriptures, etc. And now this community is for all people who chose Christ, and the Church is not only for Priests, or “super-holy” people. The Church is the new Israel, but not just for one nation. Our corporate church worship is a new picture of Adam’s community in the Garden of Eden with God.
There are those who have died, and have gone to Heaven. There is community there as well. And as we worship God in corporate worship, we worship with all Saints, and with all the company of Heaven. We get to take part in a meal, the Lord’s Supper, in which we eat with Christ. We have much more Christian community with God then we realize. This is why going to church is important. It is where we keep covenant with God, share in His blessings, eat the daily bread He gives us, give our tithes and offerings to Him, etc. It is where we weekly renew covenant with God. This is where God first and foremost makes Himself known to us, so that we may go out and complete our tasks the rest of the week in our day-to-day lives.
Still, this is not the final goal. Nor is Heaven even the final goal. We still have our sinful nature. Heaven and earth may come together weekly. But even yet, there is still something missing. Although we come into Heaven’s presence, we do not see God, the angels, or the souls of those who have gone into Heaven. Heaven and earth are still two separate things. We have great community, but this, nor even Heaven, is our final hope.
Our final hope is in Final Resurrection glory. Heaven and earth will be one. Jesus will be King. There will not be a disconnect between our bodies and souls. We will have one good nature, and not our sinful nature. As many people in the Old Covenant prepared the way for Christ, so now we must prepare the way for the Final Resurrection. We do this by obeying the Great Commission, taking part in the community God has given us (which is the church), and preaching the Good News to all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. One day our community with God will be completely restored, and it will be even better than before the Fall. And we will have all of this forever!
But the first and foremost way to wait upon this final glory and community is to be thankful and partake in the glory and community we have now in Christ. Going to church is not something we do to win brownie points with God. It is where God makes Himself known. And if we forsake the assembly of the Saints now, then how do we expect God to let us into final glory? We must appreciate the story of the Bible more. Appreciate that we are God’s chosen People Who have been saved because our Groom, the Son of God Himself, died the death that the worst of sinners die. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve, and ends with the marriage of Christ and His Bride. This story should fill our hearts and minds with wonder, and cause us to look ahead, and prepare the way for Christ’s second coming.
What do you think?
God bless America
God bless His Church
January 8, 2009
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, December 25, 2008
The War on Religion
The War On Religion
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
By Ron Paul
As we celebrate another Yuletide season, it’s hard not to notice that Christmas in America simply doesn’t feel the same anymore. Although an overwhelming majority of Americans celebrate Christmas, and those who don’t celebrate it overwhelmingly accept and respect our nation’s Christmas traditions, a certain shared public sentiment slowly has disappeared. The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.
Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.
This growing bias explains why many of our wonderful Christmas traditions have been lost. Christmas pageants and plays, including Handel’s Messiah, have been banned from schools and community halls. Nativity scenes have been ordered removed from town squares, and even criticized as offensive when placed on private church lawns. Office Christmas parties have become taboo, replaced by colorless seasonal parties to ensure no employees feel threatened by a “hostile environment.” Even wholly non-religious decorations featuring Santa Claus, snowmen, and the like have been called into question as Christmas symbols that might cause discomfort. Earlier this month, firemen near Chicago reluctantly removed Christmas decorations from their firehouse after a complaint by some embittered busybody. Most noticeably, however, the once commonplace refrain of “Merry Christmas” has been replaced by the vague, ubiquitous “Happy Holidays.” But what holiday? Is Christmas some kind of secret, a word that cannot be uttered in public? Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.
December 30, 2003
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Verses: Courtship vs. Dating
Courtship vs. Dating
One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?
I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.
The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?
I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.
What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.
So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.
I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.
I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
December 14, 2008
Ryan Hampton
One debate that is growing in today’s American society is that of courtship vs. dating. How do two young people of the opposite sex pair off and eventually become one flesh in the covenant of marriage? Is dating the way this happens? Or is courtship the more appropriate way? Or perhaps is there a mysterious third alternative that has yet to be named?
I personally believe that the debate between courtship and dating is overrated by both parties. Those who reject the idea of courtship as silly, outdated, or too romantic for today’s time are often ignorant of the many dangerous associated with the way many people date today. However advocates of courtship who call dating “ungodly” or “unbiblical” often replace wisdom with rules – rules that are often times not found in Scripture in the first place.
The Bible is not a handbook on how to get married. Although we can use creative logic and principles found in Scripture to give us certain ideas of what the “falling in love” process should look like, it is never appropriate to make such legalistic rules as if Scripture demands them. Many who advocate courtship complain that while one person is dating, they may be dating several people at one time. These same people complain when two people get committed to each other so quickly. These people are often unable to understand all of their rules. How are we going to expect hormonal teenagers to understand them?
I do believe the way many people date today causes problems. I am not advocating we keep the world’s standards of dating, and that any attempt to revise the system is foolish. Many of the ideas that courtship offers are good ideas and should be taken into account. But what some people would call courtship, others may only call a wise form of dating. And some radical people who push for courtship push for what is close to arranged marriages, which is not Biblical either.
What are the differences in dating and courting? Essentially the goal of dating is to get a girlfriend, whereas the goal of courting is to get a wife. Courting usually promotes more family involvement. But other than this, the general idea of courting is not that much different than the idea of dating. It is foolish dating and fundamentalist courting that has its differences, and both are dangerous.
So what are the problems in today’s world of paring off a man and a maiden? I believe we push dating too early and marriage too late. Think about it: boys and girls reach the age of sexual maturity (or you could say sexual immaturity) at about age twelve. Now days, it is not uncommon for two twelve or thirteen year-olds to start “going out.” And somehow we expect them to not get married until their late twenties. So we have about fifteen years for boys and girls to date each other, all while their hormones are most rampant. This is no safe way to expect abstinence. On top of this, we have more divorces. Some people push for late dating and late marriages. This too has its problems in that children fail to grow up the way they used to. Beyond this, keeping older children who want to date from dating may cause rebellion. Pushing for early dating and early marriages would work, except we must then take the responsibility of maturing much quicker than we are now in today’s society.
I do not believe one should date, court, or whatever else you may call it, until marriage is at least in sight. Some fundamentalists believe that no one should date until one is completely ready for marriage. I believe this is too tall of an order. But I do believe marriage should at least be in the seeable future. One should not date someone without at least considering the possibility of marrying them. Recreational, directionless dating only goes south.
I also believe that it is wise to not simply do things alone. I am not against being alone on a date if you are mature enough to, but going in groups is important for various reasons as well. I believe the families should know who their children as well. Family relations is one thing that destroys relationships. I have seen family relations tear down one relationship, and both parties wound up getting hurt.
The problem is not, I do not believe, whether we date or court. It is that we are not preparing people for marriage. Conventional wisdom tells us that people should not think about marriage until their twenties. But I believe marriage should be on people’s minds from a very early age. We should be preparing ourselves to be emotionally, mentally, spiritually, financially, physically, etc. ready for marriage. Men should know how to treat women (with respect), and women should know how to treat men (by not always clinging to them for attention). This way we will be more prepared to date (or court), and beyond that, to marry.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
December 14, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, November 24, 2008
Thanksgiving: The Forgotten Holiday
We are gearing up for another Iron Bowl, a day of turkey, and a time for college students everywhere to come home and finally re-unite with their family and enjoy some good ole home cooking from their momma. That’s right, it is Chri. . .oh never mind, Thanksgiving (the forgotten holiday) time again!
Of course, underneath all of this, is a time to be thankful. Sometimes it is good just to ponder on our blessings. We live in a nation, that despite her problems, is still a relatively safe and free place to live. We can go to church and not fear for our lives in the process. We can watch college or pro-football over a big plate of turkey and dressing. We can spend time with our families. We should be thankful for any work God has entrusted to us, and seek to be wise in how we use our money.
Not everyone in the world is blessed in these ways. Those of us who have good families, decent incomes, a free nation, and many other blessings should be thankful for all of this. However it is often those with the least who are the most thankful. Those of us who are rich are often times not thankful. Everyone is blessed to simply be alive, and have a chance to have a relationship with God and people.
I say this, and I am probably somewhere in between. I do not have everything I want all the time. But I have far more than I deserve. Even when times are tough financially, or when it is easy to give up pursuing a Christian life, I realize all I have been blessed with. This Thanksgiving, however, I am going to attempt to look at myself as rich, and not middle-class. Compared to what I deserve, I am rich.
What applications can we take from this? I believe that if we were more thankful, many parts of our lives would become better. Particularly, I believe that our politics and evangelism would change. I believe that if we were more thankful for what we had, we would not rely on the state as much. We would work harder and work more. We would have a real family, instead of the state being our family.
Furthermore, if we realized how fortunate we are to have our blessings, we may treat other less-fortunate people with more respect. We may be able to identify with them more. Sometimes our problems in evangelism and communication is that we fail to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. If we did this, we would be more competent communicators and witnesses, and would probably take more responsibilities for ourselves instead of relying on the state to take care of those financially or emotionally troubled.
In short, I encourage everyone this Thanksgiving season to be thankful. Don’t get too excited too quick about Christmas. I love Christmas and look forward to it. But how can we appreciate Christmas as much if we are not thankful first? Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday, and thus, we have forgotten to be thankful. The first Thanksgiving was probably the most thankful Thanksgiving. Yet it came at a time when people were starving and freezing to death. I encourage you to look at what you have, thank God for all you have in specific detail, and allow that to influence every part of your life, not just now, but also into the future.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Be thankful!
November 24, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Of course, underneath all of this, is a time to be thankful. Sometimes it is good just to ponder on our blessings. We live in a nation, that despite her problems, is still a relatively safe and free place to live. We can go to church and not fear for our lives in the process. We can watch college or pro-football over a big plate of turkey and dressing. We can spend time with our families. We should be thankful for any work God has entrusted to us, and seek to be wise in how we use our money.
Not everyone in the world is blessed in these ways. Those of us who have good families, decent incomes, a free nation, and many other blessings should be thankful for all of this. However it is often those with the least who are the most thankful. Those of us who are rich are often times not thankful. Everyone is blessed to simply be alive, and have a chance to have a relationship with God and people.
I say this, and I am probably somewhere in between. I do not have everything I want all the time. But I have far more than I deserve. Even when times are tough financially, or when it is easy to give up pursuing a Christian life, I realize all I have been blessed with. This Thanksgiving, however, I am going to attempt to look at myself as rich, and not middle-class. Compared to what I deserve, I am rich.
What applications can we take from this? I believe that if we were more thankful, many parts of our lives would become better. Particularly, I believe that our politics and evangelism would change. I believe that if we were more thankful for what we had, we would not rely on the state as much. We would work harder and work more. We would have a real family, instead of the state being our family.
Furthermore, if we realized how fortunate we are to have our blessings, we may treat other less-fortunate people with more respect. We may be able to identify with them more. Sometimes our problems in evangelism and communication is that we fail to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. If we did this, we would be more competent communicators and witnesses, and would probably take more responsibilities for ourselves instead of relying on the state to take care of those financially or emotionally troubled.
In short, I encourage everyone this Thanksgiving season to be thankful. Don’t get too excited too quick about Christmas. I love Christmas and look forward to it. But how can we appreciate Christmas as much if we are not thankful first? Thanksgiving has become the forgotten holiday, and thus, we have forgotten to be thankful. The first Thanksgiving was probably the most thankful Thanksgiving. Yet it came at a time when people were starving and freezing to death. I encourage you to look at what you have, thank God for all you have in specific detail, and allow that to influence every part of your life, not just now, but also into the future.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Be thankful!
November 24, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Nature of Man
We have a messed up view of human nature in our world today. It seems like we cannot get it right. We may put man ahead of God. Or perhaps we believe in a relative morality ideology that in essence teaches us that man is not sinful, because there is no real right or wrong. Perhaps we believe that man can make it on his own, and that he does not need others to survive.
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
There are all sorts of different ways to look at the nature of man, and it seems we just have not been able to tie it together in a Biblical way that is self-evidently true. One great example of an ideology on the nature of man is the Enlightenment.
The Enlightenment taught a very radical view that the human mind is the end to all things. We can achieve personal happiness, satisfaction, knowledge, etc. through the human mind. This was a rejection to the Christian faith which teaches that God is the end to all things and that our chief end is to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever.
One thing this did, which became as much of a political notion as religious, was reject the idea of the modern Roman Catholic Church and its teachings. It taught that our satisfaction and knowledge can be found within our own minds, not through the teachings of the Pope, Bishop, or through acts such as confession of sin, penance, etc. The ideas of individualism, relativism, etc., became the popular ideologies. These ideas along with the idea of utter separation of Church and State (which had been a problem) greatly influenced the political thought. Enlightenment thinking did somewhat influence our American Revolution and early basic American government.
Then came the Protestant Reformation. This was sort of the spiritual Enlightenment. The Protestant Reformation in many respects was a completely opposite approach to the Enlightenment. Yet it too had very radical beliefs that whether intentionally or unintentionally influenced political thought. Our Founders themselves were greatly influenced by the Protestant Reformation. How did two opposing forces join together in the American Revolution, and what does this say about human nature anyway?
Although these were two different viewpoints, let us look at some similarities these had. They both at some level rejected the Roman Catholic Church at that time. They both sought after religious freedom and separation of Church and State. They both believed one can obtain some sort of individual satisfaction apart from any Pope or Bishop. Similarly, they both rejected the notion that works in the Church buys something eternal (i.e. forgiveness of sin, less time in a purgatory, salvation, etc.). There was much common ground even in these completely different worldviews, which help build a structure for the American cause for independence.
Today we have drifted so far. We do not write with the same passion our Founding Father’s wrote. Modern-day self-acclaimed intellectuals are hardly the philosophers of the Enlightenment, and few theologians write with the same faith and piety that people like Luther or Calvin had. As a result, our politicians do not speak with the same zeal, passion, or intellect our Founding Fathers had. How many politicians do you hear saying “Give me liberty or give me death!?”
But even yet, we can still see remains of each worldview. The Protestant Reformation was probably one of the closest movements we have had that lead to a good understanding of human nature, and the American Revolution also ranks pretty high (which had much inspiration from the Reformation). Although I believe the church broke apart from Rome for good reason, I do believe many Protestants over-state some of the great reformers points to a point of misunderstanding human nature. Although salvation is offered by Christ on an individual basis, and not through works, Popes, etc., it is immature to consider ourselves “individualist” Christians. Although our salvation has its root in a personal relationship with Jesus, it is actually prideful to believe we can exercise this relationship just as well individually as we can corporately.
Another thing we do today too often is actually degrade our human nature. While we should not think in the anti-religious way the Enlightenment thinkers did, there is actually some real truth we can find in their ideologies. It is certainly true we should not give ourselves credit for any glory, but we must remember that mankind was made in glory. Man was created in the Image of God, and had ruler of the rest of God’s creation. Man will one day reign with God, and will even be higher than the angels.
Sometimes Protestants in America focus so much on the sinfulness of man that they forget about who man was before the Fall, and who man will be in Final Resurrection glory. It is the church, which is comprised of real human beings, that is the Bride of Jesus Christ Who is God Himself. Whenever the Church tries reaching out to non-Christians, we must be balanced in our approach to teaching the sinfulness of man, and showing the glories God has in store for His People. Far too often we teach a woe is me attitude and forget that man really does have dominion over all other animals, and will one day even be above the angels in perfect communion with God.
This false idea of human nature affects our worship, evangelism, political ideology, and frankly, our whole way of life.
Although there was error in some of the ideas of the Founders of this nation, there is much we can learn from them in regards to human nature. They understood that man stands out in creation. They understood that man has the ability to overthrow false government and create new government, and that salvation is not found at the hands of a king or Pope. They put a high emphasis on the human mind. They understood that we have a Creator Who gave us certain Rights on an equal and individual basis. However they did this realizing the sinfulness of man, thus creating a government for the purpose of punishing those who take away our God-given Rights.
In worship, our churches are often either so joyful they forget to be somber and take part in confession
or they forget about the joyful practices such as the Lord’s Supper. The Lord’s Supper is a real meal with God, which foreshadows our Final Resurrection glory which is to come.
I believe that Psalm 8:3-8 explains this paradox well. It reads, “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that You visit him. For you have made him a little lower than the
angels, and you have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;You have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen – even the beasts of the
field, and birds of the air, and the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.” The only thing I can add to this, is that if we are in this life “a little lower than the angels,” we will be all the more higher in Final Resurrection glory.
The true identity of mankind and mans true nature is only found in a Christian worldview. However it is also self-evident, to quote from the Declaration of Independence. Therefore in a broader sense, this simply makes the Christian worldview itself at large self-evident. It becomes the only worldview that explains human nature in a manner that is consistent with everything we see around us.
The underlying explanation to man’s nature is this: Man is created in the Image of God. Every person bears God’s Image in some way, whether Christian or non-Christian. However this is more than just a
statement. This is also a command. Don’t be non-human. Be human. Live for God and live for others. Live in a faithful manner, a loving manner, and a hopeful manner, all done by the Trinity Himself.
Therefore I encourage every Christian reading this who does not go to church, to find a Church if in any way possible. I say this not because your salvation is reached by a Pastor or by a ritual, but because the routines done in a Trinitarian corporate worship service and the people you meet at a Godly church helps you reach the fullness of your salvation. It is non-human to have no community. It is non-human to believe you can reach God and experience Him fully without the company of others. Even God Himself is a company of three persons. When God created Adam, he said “It is not good for man to be alone.” And after He formed Eve, He gave them children. Community was formed by God.
And if you are a non-Christian, I encourage you to look at the many questions of the world around you and ask yourselves what other worldview can answer these questions. When I look at simply the nature of man itself, the only logical and consistent answer I find is that man is created in the Image of God. From where else do we obtain the kind of community we need? Where else do we become moral, conscience, aware, loving, personal, etc. people? Being in the Image of God is both a statement and a command. So in short, I command you to live in the Image of God.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless His Church
November 19, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Obamanation
**To all Obama lovers, forgive my harsh words. I do wish the man well, and I ask that you read this open-mindedly.**
I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.
Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.
But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.
I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.
I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.
God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.
Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.
If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.
All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Ryan Hampton
I have to admit, there are different sides of me when it comes to the reality of Obama soon being our President. Part of me is worried to death, part of me is hopefull that this will be a brick wall for America to run into, and start over returning to the ways of the Founders. Part of me just has faith in God. I realize that even if Obama is President, no matter how much he abuses his power, Jesus is King. Of course, I also wonder if Obama's life has much time ahead of it. I would not be shocked if someone takes his life in the next eight years.
Overall, I think that, despite socialism and anti-Americanism, I can handle an Obama Presidency. I guess that if I had the slick rhetoric skills of Obama, his money, support, and power, I might be tempted to abuse my power too. God in His infinite plan, put Obama here to be elected as our President for a reason, and I must trust His Will.
But my problem is that the American people are so ignorant to elect someone like Obama. Can our people not see we need less government, not more? Can they not see that we need a sensible foreign policy, one that, whether pro-war or anti-war is at least pro-America? Can we not see that socialism and communism does not work? Do we not understand the Constitution? It seems we have not realized these things. If we did realize these things, I believe that our President elect would not be Obama.
I know that we can not all of a sudden return to the ways of our Founding Fathers without some sort of catastrophic blow to our nation. We have simply drifted too far. But I am dissapointed in my fellow American's that we, of all people, have fallen for socialism. I would think that surely America would be a place where her people would not fall for such tyrannical government as socialism. I have been hopefull that we can sooner or later elect someone into office who would at least start returning us to a more Constitutional form of government, with a federal relationship between the states and their common central government. I would think that maybe we would start educating ourselves to realize that we are a mixed government, not a pure Democracy. I thought that we would eventually realize that we are a Constitutional Federated Republic, not a Socialized Centralized Democracy. If electing Obama is any indication, then we have apparently not realized these basic truths that founded this nation, and give us many of the gifts we benefit from even today.
I know Obama may sound good, but look at his policies. Is socialized healthare (excuse, "universal" healthcare), allowed in the Constitution? Is redistributing wealth an idea that Adam Smith would have supported? Is being friendly with terrorists, and stating who you want to bomb on national television really pro-America? Maybe some of the rumors about Obama are a smear on him, but if just half of them are true, he seems very anti-American, and anti-Christian.
God is in control, and He is still King. He may want Obama to destroy America for all I know. I would hate for that to be the case, but God has His reasons. People did not expect or want to see the Roman Empire to fall from within, but that is what happened. And the fading away of Rome is what in large part, over the course of some thousand years, help set up America herself. Interestingly enough, it was the Church that is in large part accredited to overthrowing the empire. The Church, with no real political power, overtook the greatest empire the world had seen, without war.
Now, under an Obama Presidency, the Church more than ever should be the Church. If the Church wants to get involved in the political system, the best way to do it is to be the Church. The most political thing the Church can do is to be the Church. Whether this restores America, overthrows America with the Power of the Gospel, or something entirely different, is in God's Hands. But the Church should not complain about an Obama Presidency when She has not done Her job. The Church has failed to show us what proper Biblical government should look like, and has failed to teach Herself government from a Christian perspective. Thus, our culture is not going to recognize the dangers of socialism. Our culture is not going to see the anti-Americanism and anti-God in Obama's policies. Thus, our result will be Obama himself.
If the Church is simply the Church - helping others instead of asking the government to help us, cleaning homes instead of searching them for Harry Potter, fixing our own marriages before asking the government to fix others, etc., then one of two things will happen. The Power of the Gospel will save our culture because our culture repents and follows the Gospel, or the Power of the Gospel will be a sword that our unrepentent culture cannot handle, and thus our culture will fade away like Rome, but the Power of the Gospel will give greater benefits throughout the earth.
All in all, I am dissapointed in America. We elected a socialist. That is unnaceptable for a nation founded on such principles as America was founded on. But maybe what we need is a brick wall to run into, and maybe Obama is that brick wall. Maybe the Church will get woken up. Who knows. I'm not too worried about an Obama Presidency itself. I voted my conscience, and let God deal with the results. But it is a little frightening that our culture would be so ignorant as to vote for Obama. May we wake up and smell the coffee. While we can.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
God bless President-elect Barack Obama
November 5, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Final Thoughts Before the Election
**Please do not discard this as simply another one of Ryan Hampton’s boring political notes. Though it may be political, and at times boring, I believe I can bring up some points that will be helpful for you and I to consider heading into the election this Tuesday. And although I am pessimistic towards the choices we have for President this year, I do offer some sort of optimism in this nasty political season. I ask that if you have time, to read this open-mindedly, and give me your thoughts (I know many of you do not have much time, but any thought is greatly appreciated : ))**
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Forty-eight hours from now, it will probably be apparent who our next President will be. After a short time in the Senate, Barack Obama has come out of nowhere with an optimistic message of change. Meanwhile under-dog John McCain is hoping for a great comeback as he had some several months ago in the Republican primaries. With much at stake, this Presidential election seems to be all I see on television and even facebook.
There is so much I could write about in regards to the election, and I do not know where to begin. But I will try to cover each point I want to make thoroughly, while being economical with my words, and thus your time and mine.
First, I will cover the reason to vote. I believe that voting is an important thing to do, and I do encourage everyone who is registered to vote to show up at the polls, so long as you are educated and feel comfortable with one of the choices you will see on your ballot. However I will not say that you are not American for not voting. Here is what I believe to be un-American: “John McCain is a Republican, so I think I will vote for him,” “I think it would be cool to have a black President,” “I don’t care about who the leaders of this nation are, so I just won’t vote,” “There’s an election Tuesday?”
Being apathetic is really what is largely un-American. But if you are apathetic, at least admit it. I have more respect for the person who at least realizes and admits to being apathetic. I probably have as much or more patience for the last two of those un-American statements I listed above, than for the first two. At least they realize they are apathetic, and therefore do not force themselves to make an uneducated vote.
A lot of people I am sure, as I have received minor criticism even on facebook, look down upon me for highly considering placing a vote for Constitutionalist Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin for President. But that I believe is a better vote than an ignorant vote for McCain or Obama. Are half of our voters even intellectually qualified to vote? Do our voters know what our three branches of government are? Do our voters know much at all about the Constitution, such as its purpose, what it says, and its history? How many American voters assume that we are simply a Democracy (in case you think we are, we actually are not)? How many of our voters can recite even a line of the Declaration of Independence? How many voters can mention half of our nation’s Presidents, know when they served, etc.? How many people know how the electoral process works, how many Senators we have, etc? How many American voters understand economics and foreign policy – perhaps the two biggest issues of this election? How many voters even know where their favorite candidate stands on the issues (see the Howard Stern video below)?
Perhaps we should have a voters test. We have a drivers test, drivers permit test, citizenship tests for some foreigners, tests to graduate high school and college, etc. But any person of age can vote for whomever and whatever they want on any pretenses.
I support Chuck Baldwin because I believe that out of the candidates for President who will be listed on my ballot, he is our best choice. I definitely do not like Obama and his socialism, but I am not a huge fan of McCain either. I would like the think that McCain at least has more integrity than Obama, would be a better leader, and is not quite as much of a socialist, but many of his policies, etc., are nowhere near mine. Some consider it throwing my vote away, but here is the way I look at it: why continue to support the two-branches-of-one-party monopoly establishment we have? Why vote for someone who I do not like? McCain will probably take all of Alabama’s electoral votes anyway, so why give him even more support that he does not deserve? The more votes a third-party candidate receives, the more media attention they will receive. The more media attention they receive, the more they are likely to gain more support and more votes. And beyond this, a vote against the establishment of two branches of one party is a vote for another choice, and for our leaders to wake up and realize that not every American is so dumb to be fooled by socialist and tyrannical policies (I am not calling McCain or even Obama a tyrant, but understand that if we are oblivious to the possibility of a tyrant, we become at the greatest risk for one; people did not elect Hitler because they wanted a tyrant).
Do I fear the future of this nation? Well, I sort of do. I want best for the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I do not believe that projected winner Barack Obama is the best. Honestly, I believe he would be one of the worst Presidents America has had. And even if John McCain makes a last minute comeback, which is possible, he is by no means my ideal President either. But I do have optimism. No matter who becomes President, America will still have the same King. America, until her end, will be a monarchy ruled by the same Ruler. King Jesus will still reign in America and everywhere. And even if Obama becomes President, perhaps it will give more of an opportunity for the Church to show that it is Jesus, not Obama, Who truly rules this nation and all the nations.
I simply encourage you this political season to not be so apathetic. If you are educated and like one of the candidates running for President (also keep in mind there are other things we are voting on as well), and you are eligible to vote, then please vote for that candidate. If you at least understand that you do not know what you should, then please, be humble enough to stay at home and leave such an important task in wiser hands. If you are apathetic, then I encourage you to start trying to understand the issues better, and be more prepared to vote for the next election that comes around. But please, do not vote for someone because they sound good, or because you think your mom or dad is a Republican, etc. Understand the issues for yourself, and even ask yourself, “Who would Jesus, the true King of America, vote for?” When you ask yourself that question, vote according to the knowledgeable conclusions you reach.
Please consider what I have said here.
Below are some videos I think you may find interesting pertaining to this note:
Howerd Stern interviewing uneducated people
http://www.voddiebaucham.org/vbm/Blog/Entries/2008/10/16_Getting_What_We_Deserve.html
John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics (this is just part 1 of 6, but you can find the rest on youtube as well. One part specifically talks about whether uneducated Americans should vote).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apsz_1sSTS0
Chuck Baldwin for President
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trqB6p02Kek
What do you think?
God bless America
No King but King Jesus
Pray for our Troops
November 2, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Friday, October 31, 2008
Happy Halloween: The Meaning of the Season
In a day filled with surprises, junk food, and many secular traditions, it is very easy to forget the meaning of the season. If you didn’t know any better, you would think I was referring to Christmas. But believe it or not, I am referring to Halloween. That’s right y’all, I am making the case that “The Devil’s Holiday” itself is actually a day filled with unique Christian tradition.
The origins of Halloween has secular and pagan roots. In the Celtic world of some 2,000 years ago, the New Year began on November 1. This day was the end of summer and the beginning of the dark and cold season. This time of year became associated with death, and it was soon believed that the night before November 1 the worlds of the living and dead became blurred. Such traditions of wearing costumes became prevalent. Thus, we have an early form of the Halloween tradition, and obviously,
this is very pagan.
But some few hundred years into the Middle Ages, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 as “All Saints’ Day.” This was a day set aside by the Christians to honor all Christian Saints, especially martyrs. This does not mean that the Christians worship the Saints themselves any more than Mother’s Day means we worship Mothers, or President’s Day means we worship the Presidents. This was a Christian holiday that was set aside to thank God for raising up men and women in the Church who would be willing to live and even die for the cause of Christ. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.
Another term for Saints is “Hallowed ones.” Thus, another name for All Saints’ Day would be “All Hallows’ Day.” Hence, October 31 became known as “All Hallows’ Eve,” and eventually, “Halloween.”
So how did the Christian holiday of Halloween blur with the Celtic traditions of November 1 and the night before? Many people believe that the Pope had intentionally made November 1 All Hallows’ Day to replace the Celtic holiday. Christians have been known for doing this sort of activity over the years to mock pagan rituals that deny the Truth of the Gospel. Even such traditions of dressing up could have been used by the Christians to symbolically scare off demons from hampering the spread of the Gospel. It was a day in church history where the Christian could be proud of who he or she was, could mock the enemies of God, and be thankful for the rich Christian history he or she was apart of.
This does not mean that the Christian’s relied on pagan ritual for the support of their worldview. Rather it means that even prevalent pagan traditions fall short of the Gospel when the Gospel is spread. “Mocking” the enemies of God did not mean that we wage war on everyone who is not Christian; rather it means we show the non-believers just how sharp of a Sword the Gospel is, that it can pierce through anything that attempts to hinder the spread of the Gospel.
On October 31, 1517, Martin Luther nailed (or perhaps mailed as some believe), his 95theses. The timing could have been intentional by Luther to make his 95 theses public on the eve of All Hallows’ Day. Thus right in the midst of All Hallows’ Day, we celebrate the Reformation and the brave Saints who gave their lives for the preservation and reforming of the Church.
So tonight as you go trick-or-treating, or walk around at your church’s Fall Festival, or whatever it is you do, I encourage you to think about God’s Church, the Bride of Christ. Think about the brave men and women who have pledge their lives for the Gospel. May we do the same. May we rise again as the lion hearted Saints of early Christendom. May we seek the unity of the Body of Christ, by tearing down denomination’s walls that keep us from piercing through our enemies with the Gospel, and worshiping God in Spirit and in Truth. May we remember the Saints of early Christianity who faced persecution in Rome, the Reformers Martin Luther, John Knox, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, and Martin Brucer, the brilliant Christian thinkers and writers who pledged their lives to studying God’s Word, i.e. C.S. Lewis, Peter Leithart, etc, and the Christian’s today who are facing persecution for spreading God’s Word, i.e. Roy Moore. May we stand together now as Saints and stand up for God. If it means giving up our lives, then may our blood become part of the seed of the Church.
Halloween may have origins in paganism. But when the Gospel took hold, the Pagan rituals did not stand scrutiny to the Sword of God. As Christian’s, we cannot let the Pagan’s take back the Holiday that we have won. This has unique Christian tradition. If you are an enemy to God, then you may enjoy Halloween tonight as you celebrate it with pagan intentions – that is, until the Gospel comes knocking on your door saying “Trick or Treat?!”
What do you think?
Trick or Treat?
God bless America
God bless His Church
Happy Halloween
October 31, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Liberty Vs. Security
Nearly two-hundred and fifty years ago, Patrick Henry made the claim that he would rather have death than a life of no liberty. Patrick Henry and many more of our Founding Fathers understood and cherished the idea of liberty. Today, we have seemingly forgotten the value of liberty, and make excuses for not holding to it so dearly.
A life with no liberty, to many of our Founding Fathers, is not worth living. They understood that the government is here to protect and secure life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. True, they understood the idea that freedom doesn’t come free. Sometimes in order to obtain liberty, we must give up our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor as they did. Obviously in order to have our property protected, we must give a small portion of our profit to a common defense, in the form of taxes. To secure our lives, it is sometimes required that brave men and women give up their lives. To secure our liberty, we must enslave ourselves to the cause of liberty itself.
But never did our Founding Fathers embrace the notion that liberty and security are opposing forces. They believe as I do, that when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both. After all, the purpose of the government is to secure liberty. Why then would we sacrifice the very thing we want secure in the name of security itself? Why do we believe we must submit everything to the government to direct our time, money, education, etc., in the name of security?
Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. In the Bush administration, we have seen the idea that we need a “Patriot Act” to better secure us. We give up our privacy to what should probably be considered an unconstitutional establishment. We have the notion that a one-hundred years war is justified in the name of securing the peace. The government even forced nearly a trillion dollars of our money into corrupt banks in the name of securing the economy.
Democrats may claim to support personal liberties, but they often sacrifice our liberties in the name of securing comfort. Democrat and socialist Barack Obama wants to take away our liberty of choosing our healthcare in the name of the comfort of having affordable healthcare for everybody. Many Democrats suggest we must give up the liberty of owning a gun, a personal security, so that we have the comfort of knowing there are no guns around us (which is not very comforting to me if the criminals own guns). We must give up the freedom of educating ourselves so that the government can provide a level of comfort of teaching every child (again, not very comforting that the government controls education).
When will we stop sacrificing liberty for security, or comfort? When will we stop relying on the government and do things better ourselves? Liberty does not necessarily mean we are never enslaved to anything. In a sense as mentioned above, our Founders were enslaved to the cause of liberty. The major world religions teach that their followers be enslaved to the core principles of their faith. But our enslavement should not come from the rule or force of any other man. We cannot sacrifice liberty, and in the long-run have more security. In order to be more secure, our liberties must be secure. As Patrick Henry seemed to understand, what is the purpose of this life, if all of our liberties are taken away? Why live if we are not allowed to spend our money how we want to, worship how we want to, educate our children the way we want to, or even take care of our bodies the way we want to? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
October 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
A life with no liberty, to many of our Founding Fathers, is not worth living. They understood that the government is here to protect and secure life, liberty, and property, or more broadly, the pursuit of happiness. True, they understood the idea that freedom doesn’t come free. Sometimes in order to obtain liberty, we must give up our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor as they did. Obviously in order to have our property protected, we must give a small portion of our profit to a common defense, in the form of taxes. To secure our lives, it is sometimes required that brave men and women give up their lives. To secure our liberty, we must enslave ourselves to the cause of liberty itself.
But never did our Founding Fathers embrace the notion that liberty and security are opposing forces. They believe as I do, that when we sacrifice liberty for security, we lose both. After all, the purpose of the government is to secure liberty. Why then would we sacrifice the very thing we want secure in the name of security itself? Why do we believe we must submit everything to the government to direct our time, money, education, etc., in the name of security?
Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of this. In the Bush administration, we have seen the idea that we need a “Patriot Act” to better secure us. We give up our privacy to what should probably be considered an unconstitutional establishment. We have the notion that a one-hundred years war is justified in the name of securing the peace. The government even forced nearly a trillion dollars of our money into corrupt banks in the name of securing the economy.
Democrats may claim to support personal liberties, but they often sacrifice our liberties in the name of securing comfort. Democrat and socialist Barack Obama wants to take away our liberty of choosing our healthcare in the name of the comfort of having affordable healthcare for everybody. Many Democrats suggest we must give up the liberty of owning a gun, a personal security, so that we have the comfort of knowing there are no guns around us (which is not very comforting to me if the criminals own guns). We must give up the freedom of educating ourselves so that the government can provide a level of comfort of teaching every child (again, not very comforting that the government controls education).
When will we stop sacrificing liberty for security, or comfort? When will we stop relying on the government and do things better ourselves? Liberty does not necessarily mean we are never enslaved to anything. In a sense as mentioned above, our Founders were enslaved to the cause of liberty. The major world religions teach that their followers be enslaved to the core principles of their faith. But our enslavement should not come from the rule or force of any other man. We cannot sacrifice liberty, and in the long-run have more security. In order to be more secure, our liberties must be secure. As Patrick Henry seemed to understand, what is the purpose of this life, if all of our liberties are taken away? Why live if we are not allowed to spend our money how we want to, worship how we want to, educate our children the way we want to, or even take care of our bodies the way we want to? I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
October 27, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Why I Believe in God
Why do you believe in God? It is probably something that you have been asked, or at some time will be asked. It’s not always the easiest question to answer. The idea of there being a governing all-powerful force behind everything that happens is certainly no simple idea, and there is no perfect syllogism that would convince the most staunch of skeptics. Still for us Christians, it is an important question. It’s not important in that we question God or doubt our faith until we receive a sufficient physical or philosophical proof, but it is important because we as Christians are told to “always be ready to give an account for the hope that is in us” (1 Peter 3:15).
Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”
Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.
Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.
With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.
So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.
Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.
What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.
The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).
I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Pray for our church
October 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Reading 1 Peter 3 tells us to separate Christ in our hearts, living in accord to His ways, abstaining from anything sinful, etc. And in a sense, this should be our ultimate apologetic for the faith. Our works should be carried out in such a beautiful way that would make people think, “If man really is made in the Image of God, then I want to know this God.” However verse 15 tells us to give an account of our faith. The wording seems to indicate that we should be prepared to verbally defend the Hope in us. And so with this mindset, I have asked myself, “Why do I believe in God.”
Obviously there are many different angles to come into this. I could give the scientific argument that it would be frankly impossible for the world to come together the way it is all by chance. That would be a good and valid argument, but I would probably lose a debate with an unbelieving scientist. I could give historical evidence for Christ being the Son of God, and that too, but would be valid. But again, someone could simply dismiss it as something strange going on with “that man Jesus.” I could give a philosophical defense, by asking how we can have any sort of absolute Truth without an absolute God of Truth, and that is by all means a very valid way to defend the Faith, and in some ways ties into the argument that I will present in a moment. But again, the skeptic will always rebuttal by attributing the same questions you pose to the universe to God. “If God can be infinite, why not the universe?,” if God can have truth, why not the universe?,” if God is eternal, why not the universe?,” and the list goes on. Or perhaps they would argue that there was an outside force that was not God that caused the universe into existence, e.g. a multiverse system. No matter how persuasive you see these arguments as being, there is something radically missing.
Certainly the goal should not be that you in one hour convince the most raving of skeptics to pick up the Cross and follow Christ all his life. It is certainly a great thing if that happens. However the goal of apologetics is simply to keep those who reject God from using their schemes to pull those struggling in the faith or searching for faith away from Christianity. We should be able to come across as if the Christian worldview is not under-minded by the “rational” atheistic worldview (or any other worldview). The struggling Christian should have his faith reinforced when he sees Christianity offer a solution to all of the arguments posed against it. The person in search for some identity and faith should see that the Christian worldview holds scrutiny to anything posed against it.
With this in mind, the most basic and sometimes the most beneficial argument to use, is to say that we as Christians, and each one of us on a personal level, have been given the knowledge of the Grace of God. We know God because He revealed Himself to us, and that no matter what argument is used against Christianity, nothing can shake the foundation of someone’s faith. Obviously this does not go far in convincing many skeptics, but if we show integrity and our lives reflect that, then perhaps the truth of our arguments will be made known. However, there is still nothing wrong with going a little bit further.
So why do I believe in God, without just saying God has revealed Himself to me? I believe that the beauty of this universe reflects God. I believe that the questions we pose to the universe at large are only answered through a Christian worldview. Again we could use the example of truth. What is truth, and from where do we obtain it? Pilot asked Jesus this question during Jesus’ trial. Jesus answers it in John 14:6 by saying “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” This in a sense is Jesus saying that any philosophical question to the universe is answered in Him. We all long for a direction or purpose, and Jesus calls Himself the way. Perhaps we wonder where life originated. Jesus calls Himself the Life. It comes from the Word made flesh, the second person of the Trinity, the Son of the Father God.
Perhaps we wonder what love is. To an atheist, love is simply a human emotion, where if consistent with their thinking, only happens through random predestined chemical processes. The God of Christianity calls Himself love (1 John 4:8). Therefore, the God we know and love, is from whom we obtain any of our earthly love among one another.
What about the problem of evil. This has been used against Christianity, but I believe can be used in favor of Christianity. Christianity shows us what evil is (Satan, abominations to God). It shows us how it originated (Satan rebelling, and the Fall of Man in the Garden). It shows us a solution to evil (Jesus Christ). Atheists cannot answer any of those three questions, yet still believe in the existence of evil. Any other religions can makes stabs at the problem of evil, but there is always something missing. Christianity offers us the reason for morality at large. Where is there any form of absolute morality under a worldview that teaches we are all here by random chance? Yet even the most staunch atheist believes in some form of moral standard, often similar to that of the Christian’s.
People search for faith search for a community. They search for true love and grace among each other. They search for a personal community with God. Christianity offers both, and both only through Jesus Christ. It offers it so much through Christ, that He is God who came to us even when we were too sinful and fallen to come to Him.
The idea of death and resurrection that even Hollywood adores is given a radical example in Christianity. It is seen through Jesus, and from Him in each believer individually. You could argue that it is seen in God’s People universally by falling in the Garden, and ultimately being resurrected in Christ on the last day.
Imagine even the idea of marriage. Christianity shows us what marriage is. In fact, Christianity is the greatest love story of all. The Bible begins with a marriage (Adam and Eve) and ends with a marriage (Christ and the Church). The story of the Gospel is about a Man dying to save His Bride. Again, we long for this story, and it is offered in the Gospel (keep in mind we are made in the Image of God).
I could go on all day about how each of our questions about the universe are answered in Jesus Christ. He becomes all we need. I have not even gone into detail about the beauty of such things as music, art, creation, etc., that we know could not have become so beautiful on their own. I hardly mentioned how the sciences show us that a Creator is the only way to view existence, or the history that shows that Christ really did rise from the dead. All I did was show that the Christian worldview holds more than scrutiny to any other worldview or any question we pose to the world. The skeptic may still say that this is made up because it is what we need. But this is too great to be made up. Beyond this, what else is there that would answer all the questions I had just mentioned? They are not just answered, but are only answered through Jesus Christ. May our lives and actions as Christians become even a greater defense than the words I have mentioned here.
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
Pray for our church
October 11, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Monday, September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton Endorses...
With just a little over a month until the general election, I have figured it is time for me, Ryan Hampton, to throw out my official endorsement for our next President to all of my millions (*cough*choke*gag*) of readers. Some of you who have read much of what I have said lately probably have a good idea of who it would be. Some of you probably have a good idea of who it would be because you know that I, Ryan Hampton, am no liberal, much less a socialist like Barack Obama. And so you naturally figure that I would endorse John McCain.
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
But I have decided to go out on a limb and not endorse John McCain. So how could I endorse Obama of all people? I don’t. I decided to do what should be the honorable and reasonable thing to do: to support the person who I felt would make the best President out of those running. And that person is Baptist Pastor Dr. Chuck Baldwin.
For starters, Pastor Chuck Baldwin has all of the “conservative Christian” in him that Huckabee did, but without all the political junk behind it. He is no “Washington insider,” which is something that many people adore Sarah Palin for supposedly not being. He wants to return to a humble and sensible foreign policy, while recognizing that pulling every troop out of Iraq now will not make everything perfect. Dr. Chuck Baldwin will start caring about that document…what’s it called…I think it might be the most important document in our nation…the Con…Consti….Constitution, that’s it! Chuck Baldwin will do all he can as the President to reduce taxes, cut wasteful spending, etc. Meanwhile, he will focus on the more important issues of protecting innocent life even if it is in the womb, protecting our borders, etc.
I have been hesitant to endorse Mr. Baldwin. I know he doesn’t have much chance to win. Libertarian candidate Bob Barr was also running and I considered endorsing him. Senator McCain has had war experience which I admire and did pick, from best I can tell, a fairly decent running mate. He would probably be the best of the two evil out of him and Obama. And an Obama Presidency is certainly not a good thing.
But I knew I had to endorse somebody. I could not endorse the socialist Obama. But neither could I endorse John McCain who is certainly no proponent of free enterprise. Both McCain and Obama would lead us more and more toward socialism, it’s just that McCain would take us there a little slower. I had a hard time wrapping my mind around voting for someone who honestly believes that mankind controls the weather, and wants laws to protect us from the weather! I also have a hard time voting for someone who would desire to keep innocent lives in a foreign land for one-hundred years. And obviously, it would be hard for me to vote for a grumpy old man who thinks he can get away with anything with a goofy smile.
Ever since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans have not put out an inspiring candidate into the general election. McCain is no different. At least Huckabee had a somewhat solid platform by his Christian foundations. Fred Thompson at least appealed to the hard-line conservative Southerner. Tom Tancredo had a platform of restoring our borders. None of these were a Ronald Reagan, but all would have been more Presidential and more inspiring than McCain! At least Barack Obama is inspiring if you believe what he says. I know inspiration is not the only thing to vote on, but I want someone who makes me feel proud to be an American.
Ron Paul was inspiring. He stood up for the Constitution, and provided an idea of real change. Now I understand that he was not popular among conservatives because of his war ideas, and some of what he said sounded too radical to the 21st century American. But perhaps what we needed is someone radical, not typical. Ron Paul was my endorsement in the primaries.
Now, Ron Paul has, I believe, officially endorsed Chuck Baldwin, which pretty much finalized my decision. I certainly would not do something just because Ron Paul did it (I’m not that obsessed with him!). But it was logical. I trust much of what Paul says because he has proven trustworthy. Chuck Baldwin, who heavily campaigned for Paul, is basically running a second Ron Paul race. If fact, his slogan is “Continuing the Revolution,” when Paul’s was “The Revolution.” And he getting a semi-major endorsement like that will probably help him out a bit. Consider if every Ron Paul supporter from Alabama voted for Chuck Baldwin. Paul received approximately 3% of the vote in the primaries. If Baldwin got up to 4% of the vote, then he would make an amazing showing for a third-party candidate, and probably get much media attention for him, or a future candidate like him. Yet in Alabama, at least, it would not shift the vote to Obama. If no third-party candidate was involved, then McCain would probably take at least 60% of the vote. That four percent would simply not go to McCain, but would also not go to Obama. So the percentage would be (hypothetically), 56% for McCain, 40% for Obama, and 4% for Chuck Baldwin. Me voting for Chuck Baldwin, I do not believe, will prevent McCain from winning in Alabama, and obviously, the winner of Alabama will take all of her electoral votes no matter what the margin is.
I could have supported Bob Barr. But his record is not as consistent as Baldwin’s. He is not as inspiring as Baldwin. Though he is running as a libertarian, he is, best I can tell, simply one of the better Republicans. Those out there like me, who wanted to support a third-party candidate who followed the Constitution, seemed to like Chuck Baldwin far more than Barr. And again, with Paul endorsing Baldwin, it kind of solidified it. I like some of his ideas, but he just failed to grasp me as much as Baldwin did.
I have given a brief defense of my endorsement for Pastor Chuck Baldwin. I obviously have not touched on everything about him. Are there things about him I would change to make an idea candidate? Probably so, as perhaps I would have changed things about Paul. But he seems to be the best candidate to reflect what political views I have. His Constitutional views of pro-gun, pro-life, pro-family, pro-national sovereignty, anti-big government, anti-policing-the-world, anti-U.N., etc., seem to stem from a solid Christian worldview he has. And that, my friends, is much more than you can say about either of our two main candidates running. So I ask that you don’t assume that I don’t care about America because I support somebody who has little chance at winning. I am voting for someone who I believe would make the best President out of those running. To sum this up, I will leave you with some videos and links for you to see for yourself. Obviously I won’t condemn you for voting for McCain or Obama, but I encourage you to at least check out Chuck Baldwin and consider him to possibly receive your vote this crucial election year.
Website: http://www.baldwin08.com/
What do you think?
God bless America
Pray for our Troops
September 29, 2008
Ryan Hampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
