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.

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Griffeth is Back!!

Well maybe not quite. He's old and seems to be we past his prime. But it is good to see him back in this music video, Brad Paisley's cou "Waitin' on a Woman." I know that a lot of today's music, even in country music, is corrupt and not, for lack of better terms, real. But this is actually a fairly decent song, and putting Andy Griffeth in the video, in my opinion, makes it better. He will always be remembered as Sheriff Andy Taylor from Maybury, but even in this video, he's still the same town sheriff, just a bit older! I am unable to enbed this onto my blog because of user requests on youtube, but I have provided the link to take you to the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKgnkIN8C8

Independence Day

I think it is good to occasionally sit back and think about our many blessings we have as people and as American's. And Independence Day, the Fourth of July, is the fitting time to do so. So that we do not fall or fade away as a nation, we must take the time to remember both those fighting for us now, and those who have fought for us before.

It may be cliche' to write this and to talk about our Troops, but yet it is necesary. Our men and women - some of whom are my age - are out fighting for us, or preparing to fight for us. Fighting so that we can debate who should be our President, whether or not we need more or less or the same taxes, debate the roles if any the Federal Government should play in the economy, and debate our presence in the Middle East in the first place. Those are great things that should be debated, but sometimes we should put those aside for our love of our nation. Whether you are for this war, against it, or just unsure what to think like myself, you can still join others in a love for America, and a support for those who are fighting.

But I don't want to only think of those overseas in the present. Many have gone before them in previous wars. Many men died fighting to become an independent nation just less than two and a half centuries ago. July 4th is the birthday of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Each one who signed that document pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" for their nation. And even in our great success as we are today, so often both us as regular citizens, and our leaders forget about the meaning of the Declaration of Independence. We forget about those who founded this nation as a City upon a hill. Think of the unity and togetherness our early leaders had, even in a time that should be much more splitting than today. Breaking off from another nation is nothing small. Yet the American's joined together then to claim their independence, and so may we this Independence Day come together and reclaim ours.

So while you are celebrating with your families today, eating watermelon, swimming, or whatever you are doing, take a time to thank God for the brave men and women of the past and the present who have fought and perhaps even gave up their lives for this nation. May we be ever greatful.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

July 4, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Who Am I? A Paradox of Truth

My life is a paradox.

I'm simple, yet one who is constantly searching for a deeper meaning to things, and constantly asking deeper questions.

I'm a loner and yet a people person. I am a rambling man, yet one who stays at home.

I'm do not get wrapped up in emotionalism, but I live the fullness of emotion. I'm not an intellectual, yet I strive to learn more everday.

I'm spiritual yet physical. I'm utopian yet realistic. I'm romantic, yet idealistic. I have a vision, but as much so I have a Heritage.

I am loud, yet quiet and soft-spoken. I'll be random, wild, and racaus one day, while the next day be very standard, polite, and presentable. I'll be a Southern Rock junkie one day and listen to Bach or Bethoven the next.

I am myself, yet I recognize that I do not belong only to myself. I am one person, yet all things to all people.

And I am not being contradicting in this, nor am I being a double-minded man. Nor am I failing to be true to who I am. In fact, this paradoxical thrift I see in my life is, though confusing at times, a reassurance that I am called to God's plan. Who is Jesus? He is the ultimate paradox of all, yet perfect, holy, and all righteous.

Jesus was both (and is both) God and man. Even His mother Mary was both mother and virgin. Jesus was natural and ideal; spiritual and physical; perfect and yet suffered from the imperfections of mankind. Jesus is everlasting, yet had a birth and a death. See the pattern? Jesus, even more so than Paul, was all things to all people, yet He did not stray from who He was.

Now there are some distinctives to people, even those called to follow Christ. Not all Christians think or act the same, and not all have the same personality, nor are they called to have the same personality. Some are more loners and some are more people oriented. Some are more classical and some more modern. Some more loud and some more quiet. But even this is paradoxical. We should all strive to bring these things out of antithesis to a common synthesis, while yet doing so in very different ways.

I encourage all of you and myself to not stop or start at being just yourself. In fact, don't make that your goal. You are not just your own, but you are God's. The world has perverted the Christian idea of tolerance and diversity into something that radically defends sin. Rather, begin by realizing that you are God's, not your own. The only way to find your life is to lose it, again a paradox we see in Scripture. This falls into the same line as the humble being exalted and the exalted being humbled. When you first focus on who you are in your core identity with God and others, that you have a common calling with God's People to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, you will begin to see your own God-given personality come up. However we must realize that we should aim at bringing things out of antithesis. Become old in mind yet young in heart. Become natural yet ideal. Become one yet many. Become one in full, yet only a part of the whole.

From this, we can see that you are one of God's personally, yet altogether we are one of God's corporately. We become full. Through this we have a destiny, yet only through our heritage. We are exalted only through our humility. We are all things, yet really and truly just ourselves.

Just some thoughts.

What do you think?

God bless you

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

May 8, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Bronner Burgess

Maybe it seems a bit cliche` to publically mourn the death of someone famous, or would at any rate make the news, but I still can not help but to write a blog mourning for the Burgess family, and offering out my thoughts and prayers to the family, in light of the Saturday evening drowing of two-year-old Bronner Burgess.

In case you do not know, Rick Burgess is a popular co-host of the radio program Rick and Bubba, which airs on many different radio stations throughout different parts of the country. Rick has spent much time going out of his way to present and defend his Christian faith over the airwaves. He has also spent much time with Bill "Bubba" Bussy talking about his hectic family life. Now his two-year-old son, nicknamed "Cornbread," has died from an accidental drowing. Rick was speaking in Tennessee at the time, away from his Birmingham, Alabama home.

We should be sad hearing of any death, whether it pertains to someone famous or not. But given that Rick has been a proclaimed Christian, this really can affect the way many view Christianity. If Rick gets through this situation with even a stronger faith, then perhaps the world will see it and believe the Gospel. If he doubts the validity of his faith and doubts the power and will of God, then perhaps many people will simply see Christianity as a feel-good myth.

So we should keep the camily in our prayers. For Rick and his wife that no blame will be placed on each other from each other. For the entire immediate and extended family, that they will cope well with this tragic loss. And also for Rick especially, that he will continue to share his faith over the air, and perhaps even with greater strength.

In all ways, may God have all Glory, even when we do not understand why.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

January 21, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Look What Just Hit Me!

Now that post-highschool life is approaching for me, I have spent the past year or so trying to decide what I will do, where I will go to college (or if I'll go to college), and the other questions that inevitabely arise. I have spent time sending in my application to Samford University, as well as applying for scholarships, etc.

And although I am looking foward to this side of life, it comes with much fear. Not so much the fear that I feel uncomfortable with what is to come, but moreover the fear of losing that to which I have become accustomed to.

So with this comes a couple of emotions into play. For one, I desire the good of humanity, and the family and friends around me. For two, I do want to live life to the fullest - not in a bad sort of way that justifies evil in the name of "personal freedom," but live it to the fullest in a God-fearing way. I try telling younger people not to underestimate these times in their life, and their happiness is at the chief of my concerns.

I realize that there are people not much at all older than me who are in the Middle East fighting in war. I have just recently registered to vote, and it seems odd that now I have a vote in determing who would be the President, among other things, of this nation. I am doing this all while I am stuck to the older days of my life, albeit elementary school or middle school. My how the times change, and my how they probably will in just a few (or so) months from now.

So I write this for a few basic reasons. I want to relate to those who feel the same way, and encourage them not to underestimate these times. I also encourage all of you to remember the memories that God has given you, and appreciate the future memories that are the realities of today. I encourage you all to have a firm foundation in what you believe. Remembering who you are - your core identity - is the chief foundation to knowing where you are going. For a Christian, it is to remember your Christian worldview and foundation.

People say I'm turning into an old man, and maybe to a degree I am. But old men are often the one's who act the most like children. So that's what I'll do while I can, but all the while be prepared for when reality comes. All of these emotions are really starting to hit me (now that I'm in the final semester of high school). But I would rather this than rather the realities of these emotions and inevitable facts to hit me in life. That is much more dangerous.

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

January 18, 2008

Ryan Hampton

The Origin of Economics

The following is an excerpt from a greater piece I am working on. This deals with looking at economics philisophically, and with a Christian worldview. May you enjoy.

The Origin of Economics

We have talked greatly about what economics is in relativity to the world today, but we have not really failed to grasp where the origin of economics comes from. To follow the logical coherence, we force ourselves to ask where the origin of life as we know it comes from, or the origin of the basic principles of human action, inaction, and relationships comes from, given that this is essentially what economics is the study of.

I remember once my younger sister asking the question to my Father, "Why do we have money?" She argued, "Why can't we have stores where people just go get what they want?" My Father answered her asking back, "How much is too much for the people? What if I get something I do not earn?" She answered back, "I guess that the they can make you get only a certain amount." When my Father asked her who "they" would be, my sister said, "I guess the government."

Although the economics my sister brought forth and proposed to my Father were full of fallacies, and was essentially communism, I do not wish for this little section to merely criticize her. She was young, and at least she was thinking about economics. Furthermore, her basic question really spawns us into the entire origin of economics altogether. The basic principles my Father argued against her answered her question, and the question of the origin of modern-day economics altogether (economics as the course of human nature, not the modern economic thought).

A (The Fall of Man)

The origin of modern-day economics, at least according to a Christian perspective, comes in the Garden of Eden. This is where the origin of human relations and actions and inaction as we know it began. But it did not begin at creation. After creation, there was another level that came to humanity, that changed our economic laws altogether. This was the Fall of man. The Fall in a way was almost an altering of the Natural Law that existed. Due to the Fall of man, our principles on government, justice, and economics have changed.

It is interesting that Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, in order to become "like God." They ate the fruit to increase dominion and liberty. Even though there was an abundance of fruit, animals, and many other blessings of the world as they knew it, they wanted to increase their liberty the little more that they could. As a result, they fell into a world of pain and sorrow. The world essentially went from ever living to ever dying. Only by super human action to remodel creation could the world return to the stages of that it was in before the Fall. Even though man was in the world to remodel creation before the Fall as well, there was now much more work needed to be done. The world, in a way, needed resurrecting.

Because the world was ever dying, we entered a world of scarcity. That which Adam and Eve had was now scarce. Furthermore, it would be by the "sweat of [their] brow" that they would enjoy the fruits of the trees and all the other blessings. Now they must not only work, but they must work at the expense of giving up that which they want so that the world would be a better place, and they would be better people.

B (Our Economic Purpose)

All of this is consistent with the New Testament teachings of Paul and Jesus. Our liberty comes from our bondage to God. I have quoted 2 Corinthians 3:17 much before, stating, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Furthermore, the act of giving up something for something greater in return in also Scriptural. Christians are supposed to give their all for the sake of God's Kingdom, to enjoy in His righteousness and glory.

By this same token, the only way to decrease the scarcity of that which is on earth is to give up a portion of that which we have, in order to get it all back and more. Without sin, our economics would be different. The sinless descendents of Adam and Eve would not take the property of others. It would be immoral, and man would not be immoral creatures. But also, there would be abundance in the world, so why should we steal property in the first place? We would claim what we have, and give up much less for our rewards. Having real "money," though perhaps not being non-existent, would have less reasons for its existence.

In the grand scheme of things, we are equal partakers of the world with certain unalienable Rights (Natural Rights). This is something that did carry through over the Fall. Among these Rights is the Right to property. My sister was actually (even in her very flawed economics) getting to a good point. We are equal partakers of this world. Therefore, that which we earned, we went and got ourselves. But we did not go get it from a store. We got it from the world and claimed it.

But if it is claimed by someone else already, it is not ours. Not unless we trade. This is why we have money. We work hard for something, only to give it up to another person. But we do this to have something even better for us. We do this privately, helping ourselves, with only us as the attention. But in the grand scheme of things, we each help society in this. Ultimately, Christian economics is really the study of reclaiming what we had before the Fall of man. It is restoring the Christian way. Through this, we give up what we want, in order to have something even better. This is both personal and public.

C (The Purpose of Government)

Along with the Fall of man, we required a necessity for government. Now, government exists to protect our natural Rights, including the Right to property. This is why we punish those guilty of theft. The government, at some level, has the Right to stop of us from totally destroying the planet and defeating the purpose of restoring that which we had before the Fall. Government is force, and even my sister realized this in saying that the government would tell us when too much stuff from the store was "too much" (even though this is an unnecessary use of force, so that part of her logic is flawed). But far too often today, the government in the politically correct name of "environmentalism" defeats the purpose. They fail to understand that in order to have that which we want, we must give up that we have - even if it is scarce. Cutting down trees gives us a use for our natural recourses. Through this use, we may perhaps find something that accomplishes the same goals as cutting down trees, but does it more efficiently and economically. This enables us to restore ourselves to that day in which our economics is full of abundance and pleasure.

Fortunately, we see some of the blessings of good economic policy today (even with a big government). This is called technology. We are constantly coming up with new ways and better ways to do things, making the world less and less scarce. These things are essentially a great aspect of the American Dream, and are done mostly without government.

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

January 13, 2008

Ryan Hampton

Recapping the Debate

This is the second of the three blogs I will be posting today (hopefully!)

I finally got around to watching one of the Republican debates last night. Eight of the candidates running were present. I will give you a breif take on each candidate, and how I feel the race is shaping out. (The order I present here is ordered according to who I think is in the lead at the moment. It is not ordered based on who I like the most, or how I predict it to turnout, becuase it could change.)

Rudy Giuliani: He is considered one of the more liberal Republicans, but he actually did not do all that bad last night. He had probably the funniest campaign add. He took a pledge not to raise taxes (although this is only a pledge, and he is a politician). He actually mentioned the word "Constitution" a few times. The only candidate who actually seemed to talk much about the Constitution was Congressman Ron Paul. He was attacked for his stance on gun control, and worded it fairly well for what it was worth. I am not saying I agree with all the issues he spoked on, but his rhetoric was pretty well. He answered the questions fairly well. However he did not do so well when asked his views on the Bible. He was asked if he believed every word. His answer was something like this: "Yes, but it is not always exactly right, but yes I do in the way that it is a good book. It helped me during 9/11 and other crises. It is true, but sometimes allegorical, but yes, I believe it for the most part." The answer is pretty much a yes or no question. If expounded upon, Huckabee's answer probably would have been best. To this exception, though, Giuliani had a pretty good debate.

Mitt Romney: Mitt Romney made a cheesy comment about his son owning a gun. He got in a little bit of a feud with John McCain. His rhetoric was relatively good, but somewhat dull. He was asked about how he changed views on abortion. He said he had a change of heart, and it had nothing to do with a political move. He sounded relatively convincing, but just remember, he is a politician!

Mike Huckabee: Huckabee answered most his questions well. He showed supported a fair flat tax. He was able to talk of his faith without over emphasizing the matter. He did fairly well. He was put in a bind when a campaign add questioned his tax history - that he had supported higher taxes before. He answered it fairly well for what it worth, and for the position he was in. Huckabee seems to support a bit of the religious conservatism of the Republican Party, but this does not always mean less spending. He talked of more spending for Space programs. He also called America a Democracy. The word Democracy is overused. I would rather hear "Constitutional" or "Republic." Or better yet, Constitutional Federated Republic. How many candidates talk like that? Still, not too bad a night for Huckabee. He will continue to climb in the polls. He may could be the cinderella candidate.

Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson had trouble answering a few questions. He would ramble on about irrelevent issues. Thompson never had a really bright moment, but never had too much of a bad moment either. His campaign has not been as good as some may have thought. He will probably slowly decline or stay about the same. His chances of winning is for the candidates above him to cancel each other out. A mediocre night for Fred Thompson.

John McCain: John McCain looks like a 1970's President last night. That is how he has always seemed to look. He looks like an okay President, but a bit outdated. He does not look like he has the charisma. This has little to do whether I like him as a person or as President, but it was the image he gave last night. He was dull and seemed a bit unsure of himself. He then rambled on about waterboarding to Mitt Romney, getting the two in a bit of a feud. He was not bad, but he did not have anything to remember.

Ron Paul: Ron Paul had trouble answering a few questions. He was not asked many questions either. But the questions he was asked were fairly tough questions, and for the most part, he did well. He showed consistency throughout. He made good points. He had more memorable moments than many other candidates did. His campaign has very slowly risen, but it was Huckabee who seemed to have made a nice cinderella move. Still, if he continues to have good debates, and if McCain and Thompson continue to decline, Ron Paul might could get into the mix with the top guys. But with only a couple months or so unti the first primaries, that will be hard.

Duncan Hunter: Duncan Hunter does not seem to have the charisma that some of the politicians had. He tried winning emotional appeal by telling family gun stories. His politics are pretty much conservative, but he has not made much headway into the election. Last night was a general reflection of him. He was dull, simple, and more or less conservative. I do not think he proved much and will probably not make much headway in the future.

Tom Tancredo: Tancredo had a decent night. He is one of the "back-pack" of the Republicans. But I think that he may make a small run in the polls. He has been a bit one sided with his approach to illegal immigration. Most Americans want more done about stopping illegals, but this seems his only main issue. But last night, he seemed to balance this more. He made a nice rebuttle to Huckabee when Huckabee was talking about spending for space programs. Tancredo said he wants very little spending. A decent night for Tancredo.

Well there is that. We will have to see how it goes. To see parts of the debates, go to the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/republicandebate

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

November 29, 2007

Ryan Hampton

America's Beginning Government

The following was a paper I wrote for school. It is about the early years of American government, and whether or not the early government worked.

America’s Beginning Government
Ryan Hampton

Did America’s Constitution work? Did the American Government operate according to plan? Did the American Government operate in a way similar to or worse than the government it got away from? These are some questions that we ponder in studying the early years of America’s history. Could it be that America fought a war, lost many lives and a lot of money, only to live in a worse condition than before? Or was their fight for liberty just, upheld, and worth it?

So often in a Revolution, the new government is quickly even worse than the government thrown off. In a revolution, there are many chances to take. Was the government worth throwing off? Are the people who are throwing off such government better people anyway? Perhaps they are just power hungry themselves. Perhaps the causes for this liberty were just and well meant, but the new people who came into office wind up falling into the temptations of power.

Thomas Jefferson, America’s third President, pondered on these issues himself. He said that it is the natural tendency of things, especially government, to gain power. More and more actions become justified, and people become polarized to the extremes of big government. In governments, the government seeks to expand its jurisdiction, justify more of their actions, and ask for more money to fun these actions. Thomas Jefferson, and many of the others who recognized and feared these things, sought after a government that would last a long time under its conditions, without falling into these problems. The government they proposed promoted small government.

We are now nearly two and a half centuries after the American Revolution, and Jefferson seems right. But what about the early years? Even if the American Government today seems much like the British Government that the founders sought to either reform, abolish, or separate themselves from, perhaps the Revolution was still worth it based on the initial years. Were America’s early years good, or was it a quick strike to typical ways of the government America’s founders got away from?
When we explore the early years of the American government and whether or not it worked, we should ask two questions. First, we should ask ourselves if the government lived up to its purpose and theory, or if the founders defeated their purpose? There were some documents that the American founders drafted that did not seem to work to them, i.e. the Articles of Confederation. But the American founders properly cut off the wrong parts of this bad form of government, and sought after a better government that would stay – the Constitution. Did our founders draft a Constitution, speak so highly of it, only to forget about it? Or did they take their verbal word and written word to heart, and abide by the Constitution? The answer seems to be a resounding yes. There is no question that our founders made mistakes, but as a whole, they did abide by their word. But now we must ask the second question: was this form of government good and worth abiding by? For the dominance of America’s early years, it seems as if the Constitution worked well. The people abided by it, and it kept the government in check. The government stayed out of debt and out of trouble. The American people were free. The economy began booming, and America never in her early years experienced a depression due to inflation and fiat money – although they did exist to a degree. The Constitution worked. Therefore, unlike many Revolutions, America’s Revolution actually did make a better government. The founders of America proposed a Constitution that would in writing, limit the government to its just powers. The American founders initiated checks and balances to government. The people and founders gave much thought, fear, and study to different ideas about government, ranging from the Judeo-Christian thought to the thought of the great Greek philosophers. To support this claim that the American government originally worked well, let’s consider the facts and historical events that attest to this.

But beyond this, the many of the early leaders were fearful of God. One reason many newly established governments become worse than the abolished government, is because the people put so much trust into one of the heroes, that he can essentially become a monarch. When a leader gives into the temptation of power, he and his office are corrupted.

But such was not the case in the early years of American Government. George Washington was given an opportunity to become sole leader. The American people loved him. They would have been willing to give him full control. But Washington set the precedent. He took office, followed the Constitution, and took advice from his advisors and fellow politicians. After this, he only served two terms. He could have served longer. Everyone loved him. But he said that his time was up after two terms. He set the precedent. It would have been much harder for future Presidents to take full monarchial power.

One example of the early American way sticking to the Constitution is seen in the case of Marbury vs. Madison. George Washington shaped the role of the executive branch of government, but in this case, John Marshall set the tone for the judicial branch of government. William Marbury rightfully had the right to hold an office as a judge, but John Madison never gave him his commission as Justice of the Peace. Marbury instinctively turned to the Supreme Court. But Chief Justice John Marshall would not rule on the case one way or the other. He did believe that Marbury had the right to the office. However he also that that Marbury had turned to the wrong place. Rightly or wrongly, the Constitution did not permit jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to rule in such a case. Therefore, he did not rule in this case, setting the tone to view the Constitution as a “higher law.”

Another important figure in the early years of American government is Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson was for very limited and small government. However when he came into office as President, he wanted to do more things than he previously let on to, such as building schools, roads, and the like. But Thomas Jefferson did provide a higher view of the Constitution even in this. Although he may have wanted more things to be done with the Central Government when he became President, he only would allow such things done by an amending the Constitution. Because the Constitution was not amended to his desires, his desires did not come – at least not under his term in office.

Most of the founding fathers of America talked about small government and natural law and lived up to their rhetoric in office. Not many of the early founders pushed for an extremely intrusive Central Government. Not many founders pushed for overbearing taxes. Most of the founders placed a high regard to the Constitution. The American debt was low, and most of the people lived in peace. America was not constantly engaging in international affairs. Most of the founders practiced what they preached.

It is important to remember, however, that the government did have its problems. Fiat money came quickly. The government began to get involved in building and manufacturing things. The government was not perfect. There were political rivals. There was controversy. There were some people who pushed for some policies very much like mercantilism – a method of government our founders wanted to get rid of. Some people falsely justified government action by the Constitution. But even beyond all of this, the government worked fairly well under the early years of its Constitution. The founders never expected a perfect government. They realized that government is comprised of sinful people. This is why government is held in check. And the checks and balances fit well in the American system of government. The founders were morally minded enough to keep themselves from totally abusing power. The Constitution was written well enough to clearly define what roles the Central Government had. Despite some of the early problems, government worked reasonably well in the early years.

Perhaps the biggest controversy the early government faced was in interpreting the Constitution. Most all of the founders agreed to follow the Constitution, and did so as it fit to their terms. But some people viewed the Constitution very strictly, while others viewed it very loosely. Perhaps the most debatable phrase used in the Constitution was the “general welfare” clause. Some saw promoting the general welfare as meaning to provide government action to help the majority of people- a rather democratic idea. Others viewed it as a clause that meant for the government to show support for whatever would help everyone at the expense of no one. When one takes a straight-forward approach to looking at the Constitution, it seems as if there is no good evidence that “general welfare” could mean a general government program to help the to general mob. It rather seems most like the second of the views above – to promote that which helps everyone fairly at the expense of no one.

The early American government did embrace a small government and drafted their thoughts in the Constitution. Not everyone had the exact same beliefs on interpreting the Constitution, but as a whole, it seemed to work. And there is no reason to think that the Constitution will not work today, if we let it. The problem with America’s government today is not that we abide by a false Constitution, but that we forget about it. If we return to the basic policies held by our founders, there is no reason to think that we should see anything but an incline in sound government.

What do you think?

God bless America

God bless our troops

November 18, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Politically Correct Interpretation of Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

God bless America

Support our Troops

October 9, 2007

Ryan Hampton

God's Grace and the World's Curse of Marriage

Men, Women, and Relationships

Not too long ago, our Pastor, Reverend Rich Lusk, did a sermon series on the Christian family, largely centered on the husband and wife. The history of this series goes back a while. At the season of lent (just before Easter), he was doing a series on the seven deadly sins- doing one each week. But he went out of town one of those weeks, and left out the last of the seven deadly sins- lust. After he preached on six of the seven deadly sins, he began preaching in accordance to the church calendar, particularly the Easter story. Finally he was able to preach on lust. His sermon on lust led into the beginnings of his series on the family. After preaching on how not to look at and judge the opposite sex, he began to preach on how to look at the opposite sex, especially in the relationships of husband and wife. Essentially, he preached on looking at marriages through the lens of Jesus Christ, not through the lens of worldly desires. Keep this point in mind as reading below.

He brought up some good points, but perhaps what he stressed most was the marriage between Jesus Christ, and His bride, the church. Our earthly marriages should resemble this, and the world should see Christ in the marriages. He preached a while on the similarities and differences between men and women. He preached on the Trinity, and how our relationships, whether as family, husband and wife, or any relationships with people in general, should resemble the Trinity. There should be two people or two groups of people, connected by the love that they share, hence making a Triune relationship. God the Father and God the Son are joined by the Love of God the Holy Spirit. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are joined by the Love of God the Son. God the Holy Spirit and God the Son are joined by the Love of God the Father. God is a Trinity. God is love.

All of these are great points that he brought out, but this blog is more than just a mere retelling of what the Reverend Lusk said. I believe that if we put these points to the test, and put the Bible to the test, in reference to the world, these points and the Bible pass the test. To do this, let us look at the world today, both from the Christian worldview and from the world’s worldview, seeing if the Christian worldview holds up. We shall begin with some basic points, and then proceed into looking at the dangers of the relationships of men and women, as shown through the world’s worldview.

Men and women are different. The differences are not just skin deep. The very essence of who men and women are, are different. Modern science tells us that. Common sense tells us that. Women act differently, look at things differently, interpret things differently, and reason things differently than men do. This, however, does not mean that the way women see and perceive things is below or superior to the way men do. It just provides a different approach to things. Often times, men see things rationally while women see things emotionally. Both rationality and emotions are important, and neither one should be taken out of its context- whether taken away or given too much of.

For this reason, in one very real sense, men and women complete each other. The woman is supposed to submit to the man. The man is supposed to be the ruler over the household, while the woman may be the ruler within the household. This is why men go to work outside the house for the family more than women, but women may work more within the house more than men. The man is judged by how the family is corporately, while the woman may be judged by the way the house looks inside. Men do not necessarily always mind going to work for the family, but they like coming home to a clean house and a warm plate of supper! This does not mean that men can not work inside the house, or that women can not work outside the house, but men take pride in their work and women take pride in their relationship. Men take pride in being a leader and protector. Women take pride in being protected and worthy of being protected. It all sounds great doesn’t it? Each person does their part to make a happy family.

But we don’t live in this utopian society. We live in a fallen world with fallen people. Men take pride in their work, which is good. Women take pride in their relationships, which is good. But what do we see come from that in a fallen world? Women emotionally give into many relationships that they should not be in. Men find it okay to get involved in casual and meaningless relationships for the means of casual sex. Men become jealous because they want to be the protectors. Women get jealous because they want to be protected. Men, being rationally minded, believe in searching for the right person, while women, being emotionally minded, long for that "perfect someone" to come like prince charming, so that they don’t have to search. But even beyond all of this, we see pride. Men and women both look too lightly on their jobs. They seem to talk about one small mistake their spouse makes, while forgetting about their own responsibilities (Matthew 7:3). As Reverend Lusk said, "Sometimes the best attitude to have is to shut up and serve."

But with a fallen world, humans begin acting like the other animals. Men look for choices and opportunities. This is what leads them to casual sex, casual and meaningless relationships, and "using" girls for their own personal benefits. They want to appear attractive because of the people they are around, both in number and in their appearance. Women on the other hand, look for one relationship. This is good until they fall too easily. You know the classic saying that parents tell their little kids who think that they have found love: "You don’t know what love is." In reality, not many people do- but they think they do. Women fall so fast, only to be used by another guy. Women justify casual sex by claiming it is not casual, when in reality it is. When men cheat, it is because they go and "scout out" other women, trying to be dominant and prove what they see as man-hood. They may be carrying on more than one relationship at a time. Women fall more emotionally. After they have been with one guy a while, and another one comes along and seems more "exiting" they are easily swept in. Men may end up with many girlfriends or sex partners at a time believing it makes them dominant. Women may say they only have one, but they bounce around so much it doesn’t seem to matter anyway. The end results are essentially the same, but men and women reach them differently. Men seek to be dominant. Women fall too easily. As Reverend Lusk said in his sermon on lust, "Men lust, and women want to be lusted."

Ouch! I have heavily criticized both men and women! Was I too mean? I write all of this from the standpoint of fallen man. This is how things work between men and women in a sinful world- at least from the world’s point of view. But what about things from God’s point of view?

The way men and women are, in many respects, is how God created it to be. Adam was to be a ruler and a leader. The Bible told him to guard and subdue the garden and the land of Eden (Genesis 1:28). He was to cherish Eve and protect her. Eve was to assist Adam in his important task. Mankind in general was head of the animal kingdom (Genesis 1:26). Ultimately, though, they were both to submit to God, and protect the house as if it was God’s house- because it was. Adam and Eve were joined by the love that they shared- love which would resemble God’s love. They were to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). They were created in God’s very image [Genesis 1:26 (also note the usage of the terms us and our to describe the one God)]. It is evident from Scripture that creating both male and female is an essential aspect of how man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). God had dominion over man, but He entrusted man to have dominion over all other animals. There was almost like a system of hierarchy going on. The animals were similar to man, and man was similar to God. But the animals were not man, and man was not God. Nor were the animals really comparable to God Himself.

Chronologically, Adam was given his duties even before God formed Eve. In Genesis 2:16-17, God tells Adam to eat from every tree of the garden except for the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Interestingly enough, it is in that very next verse, verse 18, that God "realizes" that it is not good for man to be alone. After searching every beast, bird, and all other creatures, God realizes that there is no one comparable to Adam to be his helper. In verse 21, God caused Adam to fall into a deep sleep taking out one of his bones in order to make woman. Verse 25 tells us that they were both naked and unashamed. There was nothing they were hiding. They were both one before each other and before God Almighty.

So Eve was made for Adam. Adam was first given work, but Eve was made to assist in the work and to complete Adam. Eve is also very dependant on the relationship with Adam. Adam may seem to have a natural tendency to want to be alone, being the head, and the one who has been given the chief responsibility of subduing the garden and the land and the world. But even yet, when Adam was faithful and wise, he realized not only his dependence to God directly, but also indirectly by what God had given him, especially in Eve. Adam realized that Eve was Adam. Adam even said, "This is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Genesis 2:23). Unfortunately, however, Adam failed in his task by not guarding and protecting the garden. He allowed the evil serpent to come into the garden and tempt Eve. Even after this, he fell even more by eating of the fruit.

But these are all very similar to the general way we perceive things today. Man is the leader and protector. Man has a higher calling on his job, while woman has a higher calling to the relationship. The two are joined together to be made one, but very much as a Trinity- the two people united by the love that they share. Genesis 2:24 tells us that "Man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh." This is the same commandment that Jesus gives in Matthew 19:5. We saw in Genesis that woman was made for man. That is exactly what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:9, which reads, "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." Paul makes clear in Ephesians chapter five what was showed in Genesis. Ephesians 5:22-25 reads, "Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and He is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it."

We have concluded here that what was intended in Genesis is still intended today, even after the fall. We are not perfect, but that does not really mean we have a different calling (in some areas we do because we are to preach to the lost, whereas before the fall there was no lost- but the obligations of men and women’s relationship is the same). Now let us compare these things to what the world offers. Above I said that essentially we see the same basic obligations, so why would God command something that obviously has bad results as shown above? The world would agree that a man shall leave his parents and cleave to his wife, and they shall, by some standard, become one. The world would agree that women think more emotionally, and that women seek relationships more, while men seek work more and are more rationally minded. In the world, women want men both strong physically and internally to be a good protector. This also seems Biblical. A lot of what the world wants is exactly what is offered in the Bible by God.
But even yet, relationships that are founded completely on Christian principles seem better, purer, and happier. What is the difference, or is there one?

There is a difference- not in the general principles, but in the lens that people see them through. Do people look to the marriage of Christ and the church as the ultimate standard of marriage? Or is it found in money, sex, and appearance?

There is plenty of Biblical reason to see things this way. Ultimately, anything we do should be done for the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31). Psalm 127:1a reads, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it." Psalm 128:1 says, "Blessed is every one that feareth the Lord; that walketh in His ways." Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom." Perhaps most relevant of all though, is what Joshua says in Joshua 24:15- "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." Ultimately, a Christian marriage is about placing God first. Joshua, as the leader of the house, takes the responsibility of speaking in behalf of his family by saying that they will serve the Lord.

I believe that this blog can show us a few things. For one, our marriages should be centered on the marriage of Jesus Christ and the church in light of the Gospel. This great comparison is shown clearly in Ephesians 5:22-25 as quoted above. Unless our presupposition to our marriages are found in the hope of eternal life through Jesus Christ, our marriages will suffer. I believe it can also show us that the Bible is accurate, and that God’s way is best. The world even mimics God’s way of marriage. It does not work because the world does not place their hope through Jesus Christ. As Reverend Lusk pointed out (paraphrased), "It looks so great and so beautiful when marriages are lived out in light of the Gospel." The world can only try, but unless they put their hope in Jesus, they will always fail. Finally, we can better understand the seriousness of the fall of man. Even when man does things according the basic patterns of God’s will, it does not work as sufficiently under the fall, and it does not work at all when our hope is not found in Jesus Christ.

Our marriages are a strong representation to the Christian faith, and the Christian faith should be the representative in our marriages.

You may hear some of Reverend Lusk’s sermon audio at http://trinity-pres.net/audio/sermonindex.php

What do you think?

God Bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 28, 2007

Ryan Hampton

Remembering Steve Irwin

It has been just over a year since the passing of Steve Irwin, the beloved Crocodile Hunter. People know him for his famous line, "Crickey!" and for his dangerous stunts that he always found a way to survive- until September 4, 2006. Not much controversy has followed his name, whether before or after death- only a brave animal lover doing what he loved.

Even after his death, it is hard to find much about his personal life, whether religion, politics, etc. He has been noted as a conservationist, environmentalist, and atheist, although his wife had claimed that he did believe in God. Still, little children don’t know him as "that environmental guy on CNN" but simply as "The Crocodile Hunter."

And that’s a good thing. There is nothing wrong with making political statements, so long as they are done in the appropriate ways. Steve Irwin was appropriate. He was appropriate by not being political much at all. He was an animal lover first, and a political activist way down the line after that. Furthermore, his practices would support his beliefs, whether they were right or wrong.

If you have read just a few of my blogs, you will probably be pretty aware that I am not an atheist, and you will probably get the idea I’m not a big environmentalist. It’s not that I am against helping the environment, though, but that I don’t like many of the environmentalist out there today, who turn to government to stop the very things they do or have. Unlike someone such as Al Gore, Steve Irwin did not ask for huge government spending to get rid of gas-powered products, while having one of the biggest gasoline bills in the country. He simply did what he loved- protecting endangered species, and explored wildlife.

It may be cliché to talk really good about someone just after death, or at the anniversary of their death, but Steve Irwin deserves it as much as anyone for his passion and lack of hypocrisy. He lived doing what he loved, and died doing what he loved. It’s not very often we can learn from an environmental atheist in any other way than by not doing what they do, but if that is what Steve Irwin was, then perhaps we can.

For a similar blog on Irwin, written just after his passing, check out "The True Environmentalist" by Josh Rutledge. http://daygrind.blogspot.com/2006/09/true-environmentalist.html

What do you think?

God bless America

Pray for our Troops

September 10, 2007

Ryan