Why we hate

I have very little to do in this post surgical immobile and drugged up state. This took a very long time to write and I hope it's coherent.

The media has their panties in a bunch over what to call the shooter.  Is he a terrorist, a thug, mentally ill, racist... I say, yes to all of those. But if we are looking at the most descriptive name, it would seem "white supremecy extremist" should do the trick.

Not that it matters! These kinds of issues - what label we use, that he got apprehended peacefully, that the Confederate flag still flies over some building in SC - pale in comparison to the real issues that need deep and meaningful conversations. In this case: what is truly at the root of racism.

To really understand this, we need to go deeper than why some white Americans hate black Americans. The real question is why does anyone hate anyone? And the answer is not all that complex. Once understood, we can plot a path forward, and be realistic in our expectations.

So why do we hate? We hate what we fear, and we all fear things that are dangerously different. I do. You do. We all do.

The reality is that for a very long time people from other races were considered dangerously different. This reality is not new. We have a long history as a species of anyone-not-like-me being considered dangerous and as a result, feared and hated. Think about every war ever fought. Think about every border ever establish, every wall ever constructed. All to keep people of sameness away from something or someone who is "other".

There are two reasons for this in my worldview.

The first is because it helps a lot when it comes to survival. It is a natural instinct bred in us. By natural I do not mean we were designed that way, only that it is now a part of our nature.

In the opening of Genesis, the bible talks about the "good" version of human life. Man and animal living in harmony. Enter the fall; killing starts. Killing (danger) leads to fear, fear leads to hate. Whether that's a literal thing 6000 years ago or just a word picture of how things got this way is irrelevant. Today we fear things that are dangerous and we hate what we fear.

In Isaiah (11:6), when the perfect is restored, the bible says "wolf will lay down with lamb." Why is that imagery used, because right now the wolf would eat the lamb. Perfection means no more danger; no more fear. Fear is gone in a restored humanity.

If your not of the bible believing type, just look at natural selection. Same theory. Fear keeps us alive. So fearful species survive to make more fearful versions of themselves. We fear otherness in our core being. All of us. What we fear we inevitably hate. 

This leads to a ton of other ideologies like:
-We are better then them
-We need to control them
-They are not as valuable as we are
-We need to protect ourselves from them
-We should concour, enslave, or annihilate them because they are lesser than us

You get the idea.  This is our history as a species from early tribal wars to the Roman empire through the crusades to Hitler and the Islamic terrorists of today. It's ingrained in our makeup. It's who we are.

I am not saying on one hand, that there is no such thing as a just war, or on the other that we cannot or should not change. I'm only detailing the question of why - why do we hate. We hate what we fear, we fear what we consider dangerous, and we (as a species) have considered people from other races dangerous.

Knowledge is what brings us the ability to realize that skin tone is meaningless and that we are truly the same, but we as a species still fear what is dangerous and different. The majority of us in recent history have moved past the idea that other people are dangerous, but we still respond to danger the same way. Just go to the zoo and remove the cages. You will have fear of the lion walking up to you. Some people, like this individual still have the idea that people of other races are dangerous. Therefore racism continues.

The second reason in my world view is related to the first, but it is far more spiritually grounded and it speaks to why we seem slow to change... why people like this individual still exist. 

Of course if you are a naturalist, then we have nothing but our own will to try to undo millions of years of evolutionary process. It can't happen like it does in the Croods - one generation shaking off this great fear. We need to establish that fear of other people is not a hindrance to survival before we begin to see that tendency replaced with the opposite - that loving people leads to longer life. This will take a very long time and we should expect there to be remnants of the old model during the transition. In fact, if evolution is the only force at work, this should take generations upon generations to work through.

I do not believe that evolution is the only force at work. In fact, I believe the progress we have seen in destroying these long held ideals is evidence of something greater at work.

We forget some times that good and evil are battling. This is not passive and it is not based on our physical actions alone.  We have an enemy of our souls who is actively seeking to destroy us. He looks for people with bad ideas and actively works to continue, strengthen, and perpetuate those terrible ideas. He breeds fear and he encourages those destructive fears trying with all his might (and he is strong) to make things like Wednesday night, or 12/14 happen.

However, good is also battling, and I believe we are winning. We have access to more and better information then we ever have. We understand why our skin tones differ. We understand why people differ in personality and character. We need to be careful to not lose our ability to think for ourselves because of easily accessible knowledge, but in general these kinds of ideas (extremism, racism, etc) are being removed from society and replaced by love for one another. This may be happening slower than we would like, but it's happening overnight in humanity's terms, and it's undoing a really long time's worth of conditioning.

We know we are winning because for every one person who the enemy gets to the point of  this extremism, there are a million good souls capable in theory of the same savagery, yet willing to love, care, and give instead.

When these events happen we should be saddened, and challenged to double down on our commitment to end these ideals, but we have no right to be shocked by it. We are built from the same stuff. It's what we have done to each other for ages.

Since we know that fear is the root, we should ask ourselves what things generate fear of people? What things continue to reinforce an us vs them mentality?

Does that thing you post on facebook reinforce our differences or celebrate our sameness?

Does the news anchor asking if a black senator is impacted differently then a person from another race help the cause of unity or just reinforce division?

Do you add to the 'people who are different are dangerous' dialog? Do you call tea partyers tea baggers, or democrats demoncrats, just because you disagree with them? I know I have. I must stop.

What I've seen of the Charleston community is 99% good. People praying together. People giving. People worshiping. Yet the news keeps asking divisive leading questions. At one point Megan Kelly was stopped by Tim Scott saying that he was not dwelling on those negative items, she commended him for that, but turned around and asked the same abhorrent questions a minute later.  It's repulsive. If you want the biggest problem slowing our progress, look to the main stream media. Social media is often no better.

Another thing we need to address is the stigmas around mental illness. We all understand mental illness to be dangerous, but danger with knowledge and wisdom does not need to be feared. Why? The same reason we don't need to fear other skin colors. We are the same. Every one of us has the same capability of a destructive mental state.

Mental illness (be it purely chemical, or spiritually influenced -both can happen) is real and as a society we need to find ways to both increase mental health, and detect and correct for mental illness. My problem with our current measures are they only address the physical side (drugs and therapy). There is a group of wonderful Christian counselors who do what they can during therapy, but they are often tied by the law or corporate policy to not address the spiritual side when it is obvious that is what's needed. Those who can  (like those in specifically Christian practices) have successes, and I'd like to see that studied more clearly.

But we need to invest in reducing the stigmas and finding real solutions to increasing mental health. That does not need to happen from a place of fear.

These are areas we can move forward in, but I want to close by reiterating... it is painful to see another reminder that we are not finished removing racism, but we should be so encouraged by the response of Chucktowniens. In the battle, good is winning. We have not won, and we should not be surprised when evil is seen. Double down on love, community, unity, and restoration. Avoid adding to the division, even in small ways.

Be #CharlestonStrong

Welfare... an idea

I was recently commenting about limitations on food stamps. I have been thinking a lot about this topic and feel that I just needed to put pen to paper as it were.

The welfare system is broken. We are unfortunately left with trying to fix a symptom of the welfare system instead of correcting the problem. You see, the discussion is on limiting the items someone on food stamps can purchase. The problem is that there are people on food stamps wasting that money; junk food on one extreme; steak and lobsters on the other. Folks buying these types of items are either taking advantage of the situation or are in a mentally unwise state. So like all government solutions, more regulations is the only answer: Limit the things someone can buy on food stamps.

But that does not feel right. It’s just more government control.

As a good libertarian leaning right winger, I want government out of the process. The Christian in me agrees with the spirit of the left wanting to help people in need. At times, the right of center folks forget the realities of hurting people. It’s convenient to complain of government spending and ignore the very real needs of people when your job is solid and you can make ends meet. We get a bad rap on this topic because we tend to do so.

At the same time, the left will use this as an advantage saying that those who are against welfare don’t care about poor people who are hurting. This is simply not true. It’s good rhetoric, but it’s ultimately fallacious.

People are generally good and want to help others. There is a powerful force in most of us to do good for others. Depending on different world views, that is based on various items, but it does not matter. In spite of the ugly selfish side of humanity, there is a stronger side that cares for others. That side may not have the same way of drawing viewers to the 24 hour news cycle, but it is by far the majority of people. Just look at the outpouring of generosity in the face of disaster or tragedy. We all want to help people in need. The question is how best to accomplish that with as little waste and unhealthy enabling.

A good democratic friend said to me one time, welfare is just me helping you out when times get rough. My reply, “No, that’s charity.”

In fact, welfare is charity with a nice government cut taken off the top for “processing.” We have plenty of charitable organizations in this country that are already being funded by people who see the good work that a charitable organization does, and funds its mission.

So if I were president, this would be my solution.

Create a food bank fund type for existing non-profit organizations. Every person filing their taxes can donate some dollar amount (perhaps $100 for an individual or $150 for a family) into the food bank fund for a full tax credit. In other words, you are going to send that $100 to the government anyway. You can optionally redirect those funds to a fund managed by the non-profit organization of your choice. 100% of the funds donated must be used for feeding the poor in that community within 12 months. Anything left over goes to the government. There will be no preacher salaries paid out of the money. If you need funds to run your church or community center you raise them another way. Every dollar must be used directly to feed or clothe the poor.

The beauty of this solution is it respects both points of view. If you want government to manage those funds, you simply do nothing. If you want to get involved personally with your charitable giving, then you do so. Then we run some data analysis to see if the food banks are better stocked or if the homeless are able to get food in areas where people are donating. We can look at people on assistance and see if the needs are being met through the system. If 10% of the population takes advantage of it, then the plan is killed. If 50-75% of people take advantage of it, then I believe we would see food banks overflowing with food and necessities because there is no government overhead.

If it works it has the ability to wean our society off the government’s teat one social program at a time. It retrains our people to give regularly which is good for the human spirit.  It also leverages the large network of charitable non-profits this country has and allows us to ultimately get rid of another government program that is full of abuse. Most of all it allows for the human touch. When a welfare worker issues an EBT card that can be used anywhere for anything, there is no community built; there are no human souls impacted by that transaction outside of the important fulfillment of a real need. However, when a person admits they need help, and asks a local food bank or a church for food, they get a person coming along side of them. They get moral support as well as nutritional support. They often find a family able to connect them with work or training programs.

And more importantly, the people giving get to see people in need. They get to see the realities of the 

situations people are in. There is compassion instead of annoyance. There is humility instead of pride. There is gratitude for what we have and generosity toward those who have not. Every mouth that is fed is also feeding the soul of both the giver and receiver.

I’d like your vote…

I’m Dwayne Boulden and I approve this message.

4 Temperaments

The Four Temperaments takes the traditional psychological categories and adds spiritual insights. As a protestant, I don't agree with all the theology here, but this has been amazing to reflect on (something as a Sanguine I am terrible at doing).  If you have ever thought a DISC profile was helpful, this will knock your socks off.

Atlas Shrugged

"You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was "only a compromise": you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them." -John Galt

Having spent 6 months reading this monster of a book, I find it only fitting to convey a few takeaways. If you have not read it, it is incredibly difficult to sum up an 1,100 page book. To try would be foolish. Take the below comments as thoughts and ideas as you read.

The plight of the industrialist has not changed. 
Modern society leans too often toward marginalizing the affects of the real game changers.  The men who built this country, the men who truly innovated, names like Rockefeller and Westinghouse, John Pierce and Barney Oliver... we pretend to think that we now deserve inherently the fruits of their invention as if we could have thought of it ourselves, or worse, that their innovations are now meaningless because they have been copied so often or enhanced through iterative improvement.

We must restore a sense of value in ones work. When an individual provides value to millions, or provides a lot of value to a few, they should reap the rewards of that value.  It is only fair for a successful person to be successful financially.  Too many people live under the false notion that their need dictates what they should be paid, either by an employer or by welfare. For a company or community or nation to be successful, people must add more value than they take.  For ever person who fails to do so, another must add that person's value without taking it.  Would that we would return to that ideology.

Our morality of selflessness
"I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Ms. Rand is unapologetic in her lack of appreciation for selflessness. It is not an altogether undesirable position.  Is not the cry against the "greedy corporations" or "evil wall street" that they are living for their own sakes at the expense of other men? Can you simply add the second clause, nor ask another man to live for mine,  and make selfish ambition work?  Alternatively, is the total and utter pursuit of selflessness found in many religious circles really godliness?

One need only look to the critics of John Piper's Christian hedonism to find a visceral reaction against the idea that allowing yourself to be self-serving is evil. However, his position is not without support from some of the greats. CS Lewis writes: If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and to earnestly hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I suggest that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling around with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. 

I believe that in either case the root evil is found in the idea of allowing or expecting another person to live for your benefit. To combat this evil, Ayn Rand proposes a society where you live fully and only for your own benefit and so long as you expect everyone else to be doing the same it will all work out.  I would propose that a less radical solution is possible, and far more realistic.  If every man would take the position that while still refusing to ask another man to live for their sake, they pursue adding more value than they need and consuming less than they make so that if they should succeed they are in a position materially and mentally to assist others and if they should fail, that another might show the same charity they were willing to give.

This moral code is consistent both with the selflessness required to avoid hedonism and fulfill our communal obligations to those less fortunate while acknowledging that the pursuit of our own good is right and honorable.


Politics
It would be easy to normalize this book into the political landscape of today, but doing so would not do the work justice. The complexity of Ayn Rand's pure capitalism approach is unrealistic, and while I would love to think that it could work, it won't. The libertarian in me would love to have the freedom to do whatever I wanted. However, its obvious that people are going to take advantage of others both by accepting what is unearned, or earning more than they should via others.  Short of a catastrophic meltdown akin to the book's version of events, human greed and lust for power will be an ever present force by which we need to have some measure of control and regulation. The only way to change that is through a return to love and respect for other individuals.  The best way I know to do that is a return to true godliness (not what we see in most of the Christian community today). No political ideology will change the root problem of man's evil.

On guns, God, love and hate.

Nothing is so clearly and poignantly evil than the murder of innocent lives.  Evil is rooted in hate. Hatred of self, hatred of others when fully realized leads to the most deplorable of evil acts.  Perhaps this is at the heart of the apostle’s letter when he says, “Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” or in Jesus’ equating of murder to hatred in the sermon on the mount. 

The idea that at the root of murder is hate stands as a warning to us all.  When we allow ourselves to be filled with hate, we succumb to the evilest passions of our being.  To hate is to reject God and the message of our common depravity instead embracing our supposed goodness over the object of our hatred.  Hatred is the very antithesis to God, because God is love.

The recent communal discussion on guns and the role they play in our society has taken a significant turn toward hatred. With time passing farther away from the latest tragedy many pro-gun individuals feel free to express this hatred through mockery or disdain for anything or anyone who would ‘take our guns away.’ Similarly, still impassioned by the heinousness of this crime others are calling people lunatics, or wishing people rot in hell who simply believe their rights are being taken away. This too is rooted in the same hatred. 

It’s easy to hate. It’s our natural stance because we are evil. The sad irony is that the church who has supposedly been set free from evil control is leading the charge from both sides. 

Instead, choose Love.  Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you so that you may be sons of your father in heaven. If you love only those who love you what reward is in that?  Everyone does that. Its time for us to recognize that we must love one another in spite of our differences. We must realize that people are in different places, and have different ideas.  We must remove the idea that we are better then anyone else.

I can foresee the supposed hypocrisy in this statement. Am I not saying the same thing; that I am somehow better than those that have chosen to hate. I am not. I have done the same things. I have enjoyed the quiet ridicule of those who have no idea the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. I have, at times, allowed the idea that because I may know more than others on this topic, I am somehow better then they are. However, I am not the standard, God is. His rule, his morality is the standard, and I am consistently trying to reject those ideas and replace them with love. That love may not lead to my changing my opinion on a topic, but it aught to change the way I interact with another person who holds a different idea. I have seen very little love. 

We are a deeply divided people, which means the light that shines from our choosing love instead of hate will shine brighter than ever. 

Newtown

So much has happened in the past week.  The Newtown shootings are on everyone's mind approaching Christmas.  We live close to the city and our church serves many from that school. Immediately after, I felt really prompted to declare this:

Evil is fighting, and I think I understand the game plan, for out of this tragedy we will place more restrictions on our people driving further division. We will place stronger locks on our doors, furthering the loss of community, and we will further outsource to our government the ugly business of working with the evil people around us. When the only fix to this is to restore our love and community to every person around us. Placing boundaries around ourselves is not the answer for evil will find a way through them. Restoring our love for one another, even, nay especially, those we find challenging, restoring a strong sense of community, and restoring the spiritual strength of God's moral standards is the only solution to these problems. We cannot rely on the government to do these things. Only the Church has the power and source of strength needed to rise above. We must stop the hate, the vitriol, and the obsession with earthly things and live our lives as if we are in a spiritual battle for the lives of individuals, because we are. That is no longer a cliche. Lives are at stake. Wake up church. Work in us, Lord. Start with me.

So far we have seen legislation for more gun control, talk of stronger doors in schools, and more mental health oversight from the government.

I too have, and expect to continue to engage discussions about practical politics, but I do not want to forget the main issue.  Without real community change on a spiritual level, all the politics in the world will not help. We need to keep this as the real front issue.  Fill us Lord, with your Spirit and have us engage in loving your creation.  

Love and sin and the Christian church

It would appear (at least by my facebook stream) that gay rights is the leading topic of the day, and that many of my Christian friends have decided that being gay today is basically akin to being black 60 years ago.

The running position is that the Bible does not talk about homosexuality, or that somehow those passages do not apply, and we cannot tell others how to live in this area. In 50 years we will look back and be ashamed that we had said, "We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit" because that sentiment is left to old guys who make great chicken.

We (and I am speaking to Christians at this point) fear, for sake of offending, calling sin, 'sin.'  This fear is justified.  The church is notoriously bad at finding a pet sin and responding really badly to that. If I were gay, I would fear the church. The immorality of not loving our fellow man is absolutely the same as being black 60 years ago and for that the church in general should be ashamed.

If you are reading this and you are gay, then the message I would want you to know is that you deserve to be loved by your fellow man (something Christians have failed at a lot), and the message of the Bible is that you are deeply loved by God, just as you are. His desire is to reveal himself to you and to engage in a relationship with you. If that is intriguing, pick up a Bible. Try starting with the book of John. There are churches where you are welcome.

The rest of this is a theological exercise which is small and unimportant in comparison to that greater truth.

To my fellow Christians, I would propose that this issue of calling sin, 'sin' is of higher importance than we put it.  The ability to simply dismiss a Christian tenant because its no longer popular with our culture is dangerous. Being jerks to people we disagree with is just as dangerous and needs to be addressed (just not in this post.)

There are a few key theological premises in order to continue:

Scripture is authoritative.
Scripture has the ability to define boundaries to our actions that we are then obligated to follow as Christians.

The first is critical, because for many, the idea that scripture is authoritative has fallen out of vogue. We run to our "Spirit lead" thoughts for our basis of morality. We ended up with many Christians on either side of the pendulum.  One side worshiping scripture in place of God, and the other listening only to their own sinful minds attempting to discern the "will of the Spirit." There must be an authoritative foundation on which to build our beliefs and to test the ideas we come up with. That foundation is Scripture. Scripture needs to have been given to us by God, and the contents of it (including Paul's writings) need to be authoritative. Without that, there is no basis for this discussion. You are free to think whatever your heart tells you is right. I don't trust my heart that much.

The second question should be obvious as well, however, there are those who accept the idea of the Bible as an old and outdated book that has no practical meaning to our lives. If that is true, then there is also no basis for the discussion.

Assuming then that in order to have this discussion there must be an agreement that scripture is authoritative and can set moral boundaries (to which crossing them is sin), that leads us to the question of what "sins" are sins, and specifically is homosexuality one of them.

If you really want all the verses, a google search can provide a plethora of verses on the Bible and homosexuality, but I would focus primarily on this passage:

Romans 1:18-32

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22  Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

There is so much here to unpack as we see a clear progression.

God gives truth. Man is unrighteous and therefore suppresses the truth.  The truth is plainly obvious, but by not honoring God, they become self focused in their thoughts, and in what they worship. God gives them up to their natural sinful bents (one of which is homosexuality). After so much time, they lose sight of the moral framework God established so much that they start giving approval to those who practice immorality.

There is not a single integrous reading of this scripture that does not take homosexuality and place it into a list of sinful practices that is against God's revealed plan for morality.  There is no way around it.  However! there is also no way around reading this passage and somehow placing homosexuality as some higher form of sin than any other.  Gossips, slanderers, boastful, heartless, ruthless.  These characteristics are equated to the same state of debased mindset as homosexuality.  We cannot therefore treat homosexuality differently than any other sin* without having that be simply our cultural lenses distorting our view of sin.  All sins are equal.

For way too long, we have allowed certain sins to be acceptable, while others are absolutely unacceptable in any form.

Let me illustrate with an example.  I knew a guy once who was a liar. He was deceitful all the time to the point where people defined him as such. He was so comfortable with lying that he did so even when it made no sense to. He taught a Sunday school class. If a gay couple walked into their church it would be a total uproar, but this guy was fine.  His sins were acceptable. Theirs was not.  Both are wrong.

Sin is sin is sin.  We all deal with sin issues in our lives. A Christian recognizes they are sinning and allows the Holy Spirit to convict them, asks forgiveness, and attempts to change the immoral behavior. But when a Christian moves from "I am struggling with this sin" to living freely and openly in that sin, then something has happened. That difference is described in verse 24, 26, and 28 as God giving them up to their sinful desires. At that point, the person is living in unrepentant sin.  Does not matter if that sin is pride, strife, gossip, or homosexuality.

The reaction from other Christians should be the same.

So in order to understand how we should react to a gay person we should use a little golden rule tactic. Pick the sin you are most comfortable with from the list above. For me its envy. I struggle with a fair share of envy, so I can relate. Then ask the following questions:

Can a person be born with a natural bent toward envy?
If a person tells me they struggle with envy, would I feel a visceral reaction to them? How would I respond? Should I love them or hate them.
If I see that a person is envious, should I be disgusted by them, or love them in spite of their sin?
Would a person who is envious visiting my church for the first time feel welcome?
If it was obvious that the person had a serious problem with envy, would we let them serve as leaders?

Now, switch all the envy's to homosexualilty and while I will not tell you how to answer these questions, I can only say your answers must match.

You see, its time to stop picking and choosing our sins, and to get serious about holiness across the board.  That means removing the cultural stigmas of certain sins while getting serious about the lesser sins that we allow to grow in our hearts because we think they are no big deal.


* There is one caveat that sexual sin differs from other sin in that it directly involves the defiling of the Holy Spirit's temple (I Cor 6:18) but this would mean that homosexuality is a sexual sin akin to fornication or pornography, etc. 

Gloating - A test of character

"Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." 

Proverbs 24:17

This week's loss of Military life from the same group of soldiers that caught and killed Usama Bin Laden has seen some interesting responses around facebook and twitter. There seems to be a deeper appreciation for these folks than other military who have passed on before.  My theory is that the same vitriol and celebratory nature we saw when Usama Bin Laden was killed has now extended into the recent deaths and because they came from the same group that killed UBL, there is intrinsic value to their lives not otherwise given by the masses.  I do not blame folks for this.  We connected with that group of soldiers in May, and we still feel a sense of connection with them.

Thinking back, it was so easy to look at the loss of life and denounce the celebration.  I remember saying how each life is valuable, and that while justice is required, and God has given authority to the governments of men,  we should never celebrate a loss of life.  It seemed so easy to follow Proverbs 24:17 in that moment, and I felt rather good of myself.

Such feelings are rarely safe.  God has, in recent days, directed a series of events that have lead to a small measure of my justification and my "enemy's" fall.  It is a fairly minor thing, yet I find myself fighting the man inside of me who would love to celebrate and rejoice.

No matter what stage the situation is set, or how large or small its relevance to the world, God cares what happens in your heart's response (significantly more than your outward actions).  It shows the real position of your heart toward Him.

Movie Review - The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau

This movie is a pretty interesting take on spirituality.  While universalism is well at work, I do not think you need to shy away from it, just accept that it is there, and move on.  There is enough good in this movie to make it worth a watch.  Having grown up as a free-will Christian, and now hold to the doctrines of grace, the subject matter is pretty interesting.  I hate spoilers, so i will not give away much of the movie, but one line in particular stuck with me.

Thompson: You don't have free will, David. You have the appearance of free will.
David Norris: You expect me to believe that. I make decisions everyday.
Thompson: You have free will over which tooth past you use, or which beverage to order at lunch. But humanity just isn't mature enough to control the important things.

I happen to believe this is not so far from the truth.  While God's reason has nothing to do with our maturity, the heart of that statement is true.

Its a fun movie, and overall significantly more intelligent then any movie I can think of.

Fresh Wind, Fresh Fire

I finished this book last week.  I read this book when we were in Riverbend around 10 years ago.  It is far more relevant to me today than it was then.  I have a much higher appreciation for the power of prayer, and the work of the Holy Spirit.  The powerful stories in this book will make any Christian wonder what we are not tapped into. Why aren't drug addicts, prostitutes, and homeless coming to Christ in our churches?  Why aren't we seeing real transformation in people?

In our own church, we are in the beginning of a year long focus on "Joining the echo" or how we can join in telling our story to those around us.  I have given up trying to convert people.  For too long I went around using canned methods and memorized speeches to try to convert total strangers.  No more.  I am just going to be me, and attempt to truly love the people around me with no hidden agenda.  May that love, and the power of my testimony be what draws people to Christ.

Privately, I am asking the Lord to revolutionize my prayer life.  Only in prayer is the power of the supernatural released to do good.  If you have not read this book, it is well worth it.

A citizen of...

Last Sunday, the sermon centered around leadership, but one point dealt with Johnathon Edwards' comments on patriotism. With much respect for our Pastor, after finding this article, it soundes like Edwards held some crazy ideas. In fact, he wouldn't fit well into today's political groupings at all from what I can tell, wanting government funded Christianity; state welfare were laziness is not allowed, etc. However, some of the points made are still valid.

In particular, the idea that patriotism is not that important in the grand scheme of things was convicting. A lot of mental energy gets put toward politics, and much of the news we consume is centered around Washington. As Christians we need to make sure we are finding the right balance.

I do not want to rehash the article linked above but instead to consider a few thoughts on the very nature of government in America as it relates to the Christians' subjection to it.

Romans 13 is pretty explicit. Christians are to obey their government. However, I think there is a fascinating dynamic here in America that changes the picture unlike any other time in history. When Roman's was written, the ruling body was, well, Rome. While Rome was a republic, the very rule of law was still embodied in the consuls. All civilizations have been based on this model, where a person or persons is at the top. Even today's representative governments like England are still centered around a royal family. Always the central figure is a person. Until a pesky group of revolutionaries decided to try something new. Instead of a person being the center of the governmental structure, a document was. This government was designed to operate as a government by the people and for the people, with no person at its head, but a document. This is why what we refer to as the highest office is simply that, an office whose express goal is to uphold and defend the constitution of this nation.

Take now, for instance, the idea of Paul writing to a group of believers challenging them to subject themselves to the rule of Rome. This is a heavy request. The leader of Rome at most points in history, and certainly Nero during this period was a heavy handed dictator. Christians were made to suffer under his rule, and yet they were requested to be an example of good in their community by subjecting to the atrocities committed by Nero.

What happens then when a document is the ruler, not a person? When a person is in rule, they can set and change rules as they see fit. In America today, a document is our ruler. Our governmental body is there simply to carry out that constitution's directives. We have the unique privilege to be governed by no man. We govern ourselves. We elect for ourselves representatives to serve us. We impeach those who fail in their duty to obey its directives. America in theory is a nation ruled by the people's own desires as detailed in the constitution, amendable as needed.

So when scripture tells us to be subject to our rulers, we are not under the same obligation as 1st century Christians, or even the 21st century English. We are not subjects; neither to a monarch nor a dictator. The men with badges or the ladies in office are not our rulers. They have been asked to perform a service, at our request. We are bound to obey and follow one document (two really depending on your state). So if a police officer asks to enter your house for an inspection (as happened in Danbury a few years ago), you should say NO. This is not being insubordinate; it is obeying our ruler, the constitution. If a police officer asks you to answer some questions, and you do not want to, you don't have to. This is obeying the rule of law. When a corporation makes a major mistake, and spills millions of gallons of crude oil into the ocean, we should not sit quietly as the President informs us that he is forcing a foreign owned company to do anything, not because we do not agree with the principle, but because such action is completely outside of his given authority.

As the American experiment continues to change, there may well come a time when the decision is made that men are not capable of ruling themselves under the guide of our constitution. At that point (and we seem to be on that path) we as Christians will be subject to the rulers put in place. Until that time, I believe we should do as much as is in our power to keep our freedom and liberty. For out of this model has come the most successful society in the history of the world. And I believe that with our success, we can do more good for the kingdom of heaven then we could without it. Freedom for freedom's sake is not valuable to the Christian. Perhaps in God's economy we would be better off without our freedom; certainly there is biblical support for the work of God thriving under oppression. But I think we have greater abilities to do good for the kingdom in freedom, and therefore, I believe it to be a cause worth investing in.

So yes, we are citizens of heaven, first and foremost. We should not take too seriously our national pride as it often comes in conflict with out heavenly pride. However, I believe we have a duty as a part of this particular nation to be active and involved in the governmental process, to invest in maintaining our freedoms, and to know follow and uphold the constitution.

The other day I heard the singer of this song on the Radio. His comment was that the song is about the classic falling in love again, and how we have the power in our relationships to "rekindle" what we had in the beginning. Here is the song.

Let's Just Fall In Love Again @ Yahoo! Video

Let's pretend baby

that you've just met me

and I've never seen you before

I'll tell all my friends

that I think you're staring

And you say the same

to yours

And Oh

We'll dance around it all night

and then I'll follow you outside

And try to open up my mouth

and nothing comes out right

Chorus:

And I wanna fall in love with you again

I don't have to try

It's so easy who needs to pretend

But because

It's so funny let's just think about it honey

Let's just fall in love again

I'll call you in three days

Not too soon not too late

And I'll ask your roommate if you're home

Oh

You'll call me on Thursday

And we'll hang out all day

Then fall asleep on the phone

And Oh

I'll hold your hand when we drive

And we'll lose track of all the time

And we'll tell everyone that we ain't never felt so alive

Chorus

We'll fall disgustingly fast

And we'll stop hanging out with friends

And they'll be so offended

Oh ooh oh

Chorus

Let's just fall in love again

So let's just fall in love again

I chuckled through the song since my wonderful wife (the keeper of this blog) and I are basically guilty of everything this song describes as "Falling in Love." Its a fun song, and catchy, but as I got to thinking about it, I started to ask myself, would I really want to go back to the days of awkwardness, exploration, and uncertainty over the real intimacy of who we are today. It did not take me long to decide.

I think in our culture, we have stopped celebrating love, and started focusing our celebration on a subset of love based around the intense feeling felt with the newness of a new person. Perhaps this is why so many of our marriages end in affairs. As a culture we have been told to expect that amazing take-over-every-thought-in-your-mind feeling all the time. If that is lost, then we must "fall in love again."

How unfortunate, because there is nothing as powerful and fulfilling as knowing and being so fully known as what comes with long enduring marriage.

The parallel spiritually is obvious. When we first come to Christ, everything is new. Everything is exciting. Spiritual truths seem to enthrall us each day. Some folks live for that feeling. They pursue new ways to create that spiritual high, and start to miss the power in coming into deeper knowledge of the One who knows them completely.

In marriage, and in Christ, falling in love does not look like this song would allude to. Instead it should look like two folks, so in tune with one another that they act and think alike. They feel completely at peace in each other's company. There is no need for a facade. There is no need to try to impress. There is no fear. There is simply perfect Love.

Lord help me to grow in my "perfect love" of You and my wife. If anything, my cry is that I could fall deeper in love with you again!

A Case for Early Marriage

I am hoping Google's servers crash and burn long before Norah or Avril have a chance to hold me to this, but I think this article, or at least its premise, is dead nuts on, and is something I have said for years.

I do not want to recap the whole article, as I would rather have you read it, even if it is a bit long. I will only say this. I find it against the character of God to PURPOSEFULLY build us with incredibly strong sex drives young only to say do not use it. It simply does not fit with the God I know. He does not design for no purpose. Instead, I think that sex drive is designed to unify two people, and to produce offspring, both of which are only possible under God's plan in the context of marriage. This does not minimize the directive to stay chaste if you are not married, but it is the only logical conclusion I can come up with to why sex drives are so strong so young.