Quicksilver Commentary

Why No, I'm Not Posting From My Biblical Thought Class...

Or maybe I am.  At any rate, I just wanted to let you all know that I haven't forgotten that I want to start posting more.  I'm just sorta in the middle of midterms and the like, though hopefully that'll be over soon.  I also haven't forgotten that I promised a post on the gift of tongues... I'm going to have some help with that one, as I am calling in my homeboy Ben Amis for his view on the topic as well.  I've started the post, but I haven't gotten his part of it written yet.

So yeah.  I'm still here.  I just need to get through these stupid exams. 

Now, back to listening to the lecture...

I Think I Need More Work To Do...

Have you ever had one of those days where you just surf the web for hours on end, circulating among five sites or so?  You check MySpace, you check Facebook, you check your blog, and nothing's changed on any of them. 

So you check them again. 
And again.
And again.

Today was one of those days.  Sure, I should have been doing homework, but I have nothing that is due until...

Oh snap. 

I should probably go. 

Someone Please Save Us... Us College Kids...

Wow.  I knew things were going to change, and finally they have.  Needless to say, I'm in college now, and it's almost scary, I'm not gonna lie. 

But I'm having a blast. 

I'm sorry that I haven't been posting here.  I'm still struggling to find the motivation to write.  For several months before college, I took a break from all things intellectual.  I lived it up over the summer, rocking out with my band and hanging out with a ton of friends practically every day.  And I can't say I've ever had more fun in my life.

But now life's changing.  I'm no longer in Rome, Georgia... I've traded a small town for a smaller one, moving to Wilmore, KY in order to continue my education at Asbury College.  My major is officially undeclared, but I'm pretty certain I'm going to go for a Philosophy/Theology major.  Might double major, might major in one and minor in the other.  Either way, that looks to be the path I'm taking.

Since coming here, I've met and gotten to know a lot of people, with a lot of different views.  A large part of the reason I chose this school was the community here, and the diversity of religious beliefs.  The school itself comes from a Wesleyan heritage, obviously something I don't share, but in every discussion I find myself in, there is usually a couple of Arminians, a Calvinist, a few people who aren't sure what they are (myself included), and the randomly placed Molinist.  My religious beliefs have been changing of late, and I'm not sure what direction I'm going; of course, I remain solidly convinced of the Christian faith, and of God's sovereignty, but I'm finding many of the doctrines I believe in to be explained insufficiently.

That is to say, I believe man can't live a sinless life (and thus has a sin nature), but I find Original Sin to be an inadequate explanation for this.

Similarly, I believe that some people are "saved" and some aren't, and that simply attributing this to "Free Will" isn't enough.  It appears that somewhere along the line, God must be involved in choosing some men above others, but to simply say that God "chooses" implies force, which I don't believe is necessary for election. 

Thus I don't know what to call myself.  But with every discussion I participate in, I discover a little more about what I believe, or am shown a new way to look at some issue.  So cut me some slack, I'm still getting back into the swing of things, but maybe some of my nascent heresies will find their way to my blog to be ripped to shreds by the Evangelical orthodoxy. 

Just maybe. 

But either way, I need to start writing again, and with all the theological discussions around here, I've got plenty of material. 

And if this post is any indication, I'm off to a good start, as I just reminded myself of several issues I've been intending to write out.  Yes, I know I'm talented, you don't have to tell me...

But first, I need to update some things around my blog.  A couple of new music reviews and an updated bio might do the trick, no?

So I'm Thinkin'...

That no one reads this thing anymore.  Which would mean that my readership has dropped from three to zero. 

Not surprising, of course, as I've been away for months. 

But yeah.  If you actually read this thing... check in and maybe it'll inspire me to post a little.

Democracy: Government by a Majority of Sinners Can't Go Wrong!

It seems that in my recent travels online, an increasing number of people are asking the question "What do we do with Iraq?"  Opinions vary from "pull out," to "stay the course," to "NUKE 'EM ALL," but I find that there is little dialogue on exactly what the Christian view on the war would be.  How should a Christian view the spread of Democracy, and just how good should we consider it to be?  I cannot give a definitive answer, but I can provide you with the conclusion I have come to at this point, regarding the Christian view of the War in Iraq and the building of democracy.

We are currently in a war against a certain ideology which is opposed to the concept of liberty as we know it in the West. Islamic Fundamentalism seeks peace through forced submission, and such a totalitarian goal is quite opposed to personal liberty. You see, the religion's purpose is to enforce adherence to a particular moral code which man by nature cannot adhere to, and because of this inability of man, Islam needs the help of the government to achieve its goals. If man can't be good on his own, then the government must force him to be good.

Now, this belief lies at the heart of Islam, and in the hearts of even the least educated of Iraqi Muslims. People must be forced to be good, they believe, and a government which forces goodness is the best kind of government. Now, here we come with our tanks and guns, proclaiming that we wish to bring freedom to all Iraqis, and we receive a strange welcome.

Some Iraqis threw flowers at us. Many had lived in fear of Saddam (who was hardly a devout Muslim, and more of a psychopath), and we had freed them. Yay for us, yay for them.

But then, some Iraqis threw bombs at us. We were puzzled... We freed them, so why on earth would they attack us? Rather than figuring out why they were fighting the freedom we brought, we took the typical American strategy of labeling anyone opposed to our cause as an "enemy of freedom," and fighting back. These terrorists are obviously beyond hope anyway, so it's fine to be killing them, right?

I dunno. But it is clear that our emphasis on bringing Democracy is what caused them to attack us in Iraq (because as I have stated, Islam is diametrically opposed to the Western and Judeo-Christian concepts of Liberty).

Now, let me say a little bit about Democracy. Democracy is the self-government of a population, usually through the election of representatives who will vote to make laws which are agreeable to all or most of their constituents. Democracy is a hard sort of government to have, though; you see, a totalitarian government is quite simple for the people living under it, for they need not worry about making laws, much less laws that are just. All they need to do is obey. But a Democracy is difficult to run, because it requires that all of its citizens have an understanding not only of how the Democracy runs, but also of the concept of Liberty; that is, the autonomy that a Democracy allows for, and the proper use of it.

Now, true Liberty is in fact a Christian concept. Perhaps you would cry out and say "Oh, but most of our Founding Fathers were Deists," and I would say you are absolutely correct. However, there can never be any true and lasting Liberty in any culture other than a Christian one, for only Christianity can provide true freedom in a Democracy when followed out to its logical end. This is because every other religious belief system emphasizes adherence to Rules, and while governmental enforcement of these rules is not a requirement in every religion, every religion's rules regarding interaction with other people would necessitate that those people be brought to adherence of that religion for their own good, and what better environment to do that in than a Democracy?

So any democracy will tend to reflect and enforce the religious beliefs of its people; it should not, for an ideal democracy would be secular, but it will. Given this fact, it is worth noting how well the American government stays out of religious affairs. It isn't perfect, but it's better than most, and believe it or not, this is a direct result of Christianity.

You see, I've already said that a compassionate person from any other religion would seek to enforce their religion by means of the government for the good of the people. However, true Christianity is not like that. Christianity is not obsessed with what people do, despite what American Evangelicals might have led you to believe; rather Christianity cares about the heart of man, which no government can touch. Thus Christianity has no real stake in government; it can do no good there, for the government only controls man's actions, and man's actions do not affect his heart.

This is why only a Christian culture can yield a long-standing and free democracy; only a Christian culture will keep the government secular. Even atheistic/agnostic secularists must find and enforce rules, and while they most certainly tend to believe in individual autonomy, more than that is needed to direct a government, and more than that cannot be agreed on because of the very nature of atheism/agnosticism. Therefore, with no universal set of standards for where individual liberty begins or ends, the government will eventually begin to enforce some philosophy's moral code (which is the thing that a secular government will refuse to enforce, regardless of the philosophy's stance on the existence or nature of a Supreme Being). 

So it can be said that Democracy requires and understanding of Liberty, and that Liberty cannot be sown without Christianity. Now, let me go back to what I said earlier... We (myself included) thought it was a great idea to roll our tanks into Iraq and build a Democracy in the midst of the Islamic World, which understands neither liberty nor Christianity. Does it sound like such a great idea now?

I ask you, what is the best that can happen in Iraq? That they finally get a nice democracy to reflect the will of the people? Perhaps you have forgotten that the will of the people is to be ruled, to be protected from themselves. They will have at best, a democratically-elected totalitarian government, and will still be as devoid of liberty (and as unsaved) as they were under Saddam.

And that is the best case scenario; I will say nothing of the impending of civil war which is even now brewing as different groups fight to have their particular view of Islam and morality enforced upon the masses.  In the end, this conflict will result in an illiberal totalitarian government as well. No matter what happens, we will have fought for nothing.

You see, we went about this whole fiasco in the wrong order (though six months ago I would have never imagined that). We tried to build a Democracy without letting Christ teach Liberty to the land. Instead, in typical American fashion, we took something we think of as good and created a whole ideology and a war because of it, only trying to fit Christ into our little house of cards as an after-thought.

I have heard it said that we must have a democracy and Christian-friendly government in Iraq in order to send missionaries and see conversions. Don't you see that can't be right?  Besides the obvious impossibility of a Christian-friendly government in a non-Christian illiberal democracy, The church has never thrived more than when under persecution. You wanna know why the simple testimony of the death of any one of the martyrs has yielded more souls for the Kingdom than you have in your entire life? It's because the martyrs were more concerned with bringing others to the knowledge that there is a God worth worshiping, and not with creating a government that is "Jesus-friendly." For the government has no hold over the hearts of the people, and whether it is friendly or not is completely irrelevant as to whether or not we should be preaching the Gospel.

If you do not read or understand any other part of this post, read this, for I shall summarize it: Christ can be the only foundation for true Liberty, and Liberty can be the only foundation for Democracy. In Iraq, we are seeking to sow Democracy before Liberty, and Liberty before Christianity, when it is painfully obvious that neither Democracy nor Liberty can grow in an Islamic culture. The only thing that can take root in such a culture is Christ, and Christ is the only thing that can make Liberty grow and Democracy work. Now we are in a war that cannot be won, so a careful but swift pullout (to minimize bloodshed) is the only option we have if we ever wish to see Christianity, Liberty and Democracy take root in the Middle East.

Arts and Crafts: How to Make a Diety

In a previous post, "The Fear of What God Might Become, if We Let Him," I wrote of my own journey from the Religious Right to wherever I am now, and of the way I tried my very hardest to make Christ accept the oh-so-logical-and-just set of beliefs that I worked for years to form.  Now though, I must say that I am quite sure I was never alone in my rebellion.  I can call out no individuals, and I will not, for the path they take is God's alone to decide for them; however, I have no problem with addressing the problems I see in a movement as a whole.  Thus I must speak to the Religious Right, though I doubt they will hear me (for I have yet to host a radio show). 

When I was a Republican, I am quite sure that I wanted nothing more than to create God in my own image.  I had imagined a God who expected everyone to make right choices (under the threat of eternal damnation), and who existed for nothing but the good of the entire world.  Indeed, anything bad that happened to anyone was surely the result of their own sin.

I was missing something though.  First, right choices don't come so easily to those who are utterly imperfect, and second, man (and least of all a teenager) has no concept of what is good for him.  However, I could not see this; I expected all men to do good things, and for God to reward us with lots of nice stuff, because "my God shall supply all my needs," you know. 

Both of these expectations, I believe, stemmed from where I live.  I live in a society where even many Christians believe in some way that man is "basically good"; that is, Christians might deny it, but they still imagine that a man who is sinful can do things that please God.  I know I did.  I knew all about freedom, and I knew that in the situation I had been raised in, I had found doing "good things" to be quite easy.  If someone else finds these things hard, then, I'd say they deserve whatever they get, whether their reward be poverty, jail time or an STD. 

My society had also taught me that "stuff" is good, and that more "stuff" is better.  You know what I mean; in the world we live in, "Excess is equated with success," as Switchfoot says.  I was conditioned to assume that getting money was a positive event, and that getting sick was a curse straight from the Devil.  Part of this was due to my religious training, but I believe that training itself was the result of the materialism of American society. 

You see, society had molded my beliefs to fit its image, and I in turn tried to mold God to fit my image.  Unsurprisingly, I didn't succeed.  But I did create a nice little god of my own to worship; he was an impotent god who never really did much for me, but I was quite sure that he at least wanted to give me lots of stuff and that he agreed with me that people with AIDS should have really been more careful about whom they slept with.

But what does this have to do with society?  Here's the connection.  American culture is quite materialistic, and America itself is exceedingly wealthy.  Oddly enough, I have found the Religious Right more likely to debate this than the Secular Left; the Right will say simply that "God has blessed us," while the Left will cry until they turn blue that we should spread our blessings around a bit.  Not that they actually spread their own blessings around, much less do it effectively, but despite their being mired in materialism, at least they are able to see that materialism and rail against it. 

But I digress.  Back to our wealth and materialism, consider this:  It is our materialism which causes us to consider "stuff" to be good, and it is our wealth which makes us look down on those who do not have "stuff."  Perhaps this is confusing, so I ask you this:  When a person considers a thing (be it money, health, or friends) virtuous, and he happens have more of this thing than others do, how does he come to think of other people?   Does he esteem them higher than himself (as Paul might counsel us), or does he think "Gee, I've sure got a lot of virtuous stuff going on here"? 

The materialism that makes us regard "stuff" as virtuous is subtle.  It is difficult to recognize, partly because we are so numb to it (it saturates every part of our lives), and also because it has quietly crept in to Christianity from its secular origins.  Chances are a person with plenty of stuff isn't going to admit to himself that he thinks he is better than a person with less stuff, because that would mean he would have to admit that people with more than him are better than him.  However, he still secretly holds to the belief that many in this democracy have:  the belief that everyone has an equal chance, and if one person does not have as much as another person, then it is an indication of poor choices at best, and vice at worst. 

Of course, not everyone has an equal chance of doing equal things for an equal reward.  I'm not talking about men making more money than women, or white people making more than black people.  I'm not speaking of inequality between salaries at all.  Instead, I'm talking about the hand that God plays in the reward of every man, and the hand that sin has in all of man's choices. For God is the rightful judge of what any man should receive, both in this world and the next, and sin affects the choices of all of us, especially those who know nothing but sin. 

Let me say a little bit more about God's dispensation of blessings.  We as humans are finite, flawed, and ultimately it can be said that we don't know very much.  So on what authority have we allowed ourselves to be convinced that material things are good?  To be certain, they are not evil unless there is such a thing as a necessary evil (for we are encouraged to ask for our daily bread), but how can we legitimately believe that any one thing is good? 

Now remember, it may not be a conscious thing that causes us to believe material success is good (or an indication of good), but it is a real belief nonetheless, and one that afflicts us all.  And yet, it is an unfounded belief.  God is the sole determiner of right and wrong, of what is good and what is evil.  He has not told us that a person with little should make better choices, or that a person with much has done many things right.  Instead, He has told us that rich and poor alike need the same thing, and that thing is Him. 

So why, then, has the Church begun seeking riches?  Why do we give money for our church to change lightbulbs and buy new video cameras?  Perhaps the Lost just really want to spend a couple of hours of their weekend listening to knock-off Chris Tomlin music and learning about things that have little or no bearing on their everyday life in a place that is well-lit and video taped.  If that is the case, then the money we give to the Church (secretly hoping that it will be returned thirty, sixty and a hundredfold) has been sown well.  But if the Lost have no interest in such things, and if we have done nothing with our seed to help the World see that their purpose can be found in more than this material world, then we have merely thrown money at God (or in his general direction) to see if He'd give us money in return. 

And perhaps that is our downfall.

We consider money and possessions to be good, even though we have no right to.  Now, what better to lead a person into sin than a false belief that something is good?  For man naturally pursues what seems most good to Him.  So I do believe it could be said that, while money can be a blessing for some who need it to survive, it can also be a curse to the man who believes it good.  And here in America, I find there are very many people indeed who believe it to be good. 

That is why I say our combination of materialism and wealth is a very dangerous one.  We view money as a blessing from God, when it very often may not come from Him at all.  For He will not lead us into temptation, and if money or "stuff" happens to be our vice (as is often the case with materialists like us), then maybe excess isn't in his plan for us. 

I dunno, just a thought. 

But do you see what has happened?  By recognizing materialism for what it is, we can then see that it's okay to have less than everything, and that people who happen to have less than we do are exactly the same as we are.  Their choices aren't their problem, it is their heart, for the heart makes the choices.  And when we recognize that we are materialistic beasts, we can finally begin to allow Christ to turn us into something else, something He can use to provide for the poor, if they need it, and humble the rich by living humble lives themselves. 

This is where I speak to the Church.  You can see for yourself the image of materialism, if you can bear to look upon yourself for a moment.  It's true that in the past, there were people who believed God would give no one any material blessing, but that does not justify your extreme reaction to their extreme position.  While material may or may not be evil, it is not something to be sought; only something to be given, first by God, and then by those who received it to those in need.  It can be nothing else without moving God from his rightful place in our doctrine.  Now you have seen how materialism has infiltrated your institution and affected your beliefs, assuming you are willing to look at yourself as Christ did, and perhaps you see what it has done.  You do not give the World the help they need, because you insist on forcing them to learn (apart from Christ) how to live rightly, when it is their heart of stone which you so happily ignore that causes them to sin and make poor choices.  For the sake of the Lost, for your own sake, and for the sake of the purpose we were all created to fulfill, lay down your possessions.  Give all you have to the poor, pick up your cross and truly follow Christ. 

Two Responses

Yeah, so I'm too lazy to write in my own comment box.  So sue me.  Here are my replies to the recent comments by Peter Wilson and Ubersehen on my "Slim, Laughable Possibility" post. 

Ubersehen said:

Fascinating stuff. Coming from a non-Christian standpoint, I find your approach refreshing, and entirely more honest than others I've encountered in the past.

That being said, you stated in this post that you felt that non-Christians were "not listening" when you presented them with the Christian message.

I tend to lean very strongly in an atheistic direction, as my current beliefs go. I'm not wholly comfortable, however, with the label of "atheist" because many interpret it to imply a dogmatic and absolute denial of the possibility of anything spiritual or that cannot be explained by scientific means. To digress a bit, I think that the term "atheist" is similar to "Christian" in that one who professes to fall under one of these categories can hold very different beliefs and possess equally diverse approaches to those beliefs in relation to others who claim the same title.

In any case, back to the point of this comment. I'm curious, since I feel as though I've always listened very carefully, and considered very closely, the beliefs and truth-claims of people of various religions, as to how you feel a person would need to behave to be viewed as really "listening" to your message.

I've often felt, when confronted about my skepticism of the Christian belief system (not necessarily limited to that system, though), that I would be required to first believe in the argued truth of the bible to be able to be convinced of the message being expressed to me.

Do you have any insight here?

 

...

A second comment to inquire about a few things Sam said above:

1. “One of the foremost laws in the country (as well as in the Bible) is against murder. And here's the kicker: if abortion truly is murder, then it should be illegal. Period.”

I agree on the premise of the argument:  If abortion is murder, it should be illegal. 

My question for Sam, and anyone else who'd like to jump in, is: At what point in the process of conception do you consider the fetus to be a human life? Once the fetus develops a heartbeat? Once the fetus develops the capacity to feel pain? Once the fetus develops a noticeably human form? From the moment of conception? I think what's lacking in a lot of the discussion is a clear and unanimous answer to this question.

2. “Homosexuality is shown to be irresolvably harmful to society at large, so it is not a thing that the government should promote by, for example, allowing them to get married and adopt children.”

How has homosexuality been shown as "irresolvably" harmful to society? I'm not currently aware of any research that has pointed to that conclusion, so I'm curious as to how you came to your belief on the matter.

Hi Ubersehen! Thanks for the comments.  I apologize if I am brief with these replies, I don't have much time to write. 

I'm afraid I was yet again unclear in something I said in my post.  I did say that non-Christians had ceased to listen to us, but you must understand that this post is directed toward Christians, and when I spoke of non-Christians not listening, I was not saying this to condemn them.  Rather, I was attempting to explain *why* non-Christians don't listen; I wasn't trying to make the point that non-Christians are especially obstinate, but rather that we have done a pathetic job of giving them reasons to listen to us.  So many Christians seem to reject logic altogether, or claim to be Christians when in fact their beliefs have nothing to do with the faith they say they follow.  Because of this, I would say that any non-Christian who does in fact listen well to Christian arguments and consider them has been kinder to Christians than they deserve.  At the same time, I would also say that to listen to many of those arguments as though they truly are *Christian* can easily paint a skewed picture of the Christian faith in the mind of a non-Christian.  Thus even those who are open enough to listen to us babble about the Ten Commandments for a while will be no closer to understanding the faith for their listening than someone who paid no heed at all.

As for the necessity of accepting the Bible before one can be convinced of the message of Christianity, you are correct, though I would say that the acceptance of the Bible itself is something that, if pursued intellectually, need not begin with a simple belief in spite of all evidence.  Indeed, inquiries into the truth of Christianity must start with the search for the existence of some supreme being.  I believe this can be readily proven by any number of philosophical arguments; it can't be proven out to mathematical certainty, of course, but very little in this world can.  Anyway, when (and if) a person comes to believe that there is a god, the question becomes one of what sort of nature that god has.  That is where religion comes in (though you no doubt know this); many religions make many different claims about God and his nature, and it is up to the individual to find out which set of beliefs about God's nature is most accurate.  Again, it's a highly philosophical pursuit, but not exclusively so; for there is little evidence for any religion's claims about the supernatural that is better than the religion making claims about nature that can be proven logically but could only have been revealed supernaturally. 

So in short, you will not likely accept many Christian beliefs if you do not accept the Bible, which is the source of those beliefs.  It is indeed silly to quote the Bible to an atheist, who does not accept the Bible in the first place; how can anyone expect the Bible to prove itself?  Instead, it is philosophy, logic, nature and history that proves the Bible (though again, not to mathematical certainty), and it is the Bible which makes claims about the God who created nature and had his hand in history.

To reply to your second comment, you are correct that we lack a clear and unanimous position on when life begins.  I do not know entirely where I believe, though I believe that when dealing with the issue of human life, it is our duty to be careful and consider more than simple consciousness to be evidence of life.  However, I believe that at present, it would be best to define life as being when there is a detectable heartbeat (after all, the first thing you do when you want to see if someone is alive is check their pulse).  From there, we can debate and study all we want, but I think it's important to at least make that first step, if people will listen.

And as for homosexuality, I see so much that is harmful to society from heterosexuality that I'm not entirely sure of where I stand on it anymore.  To be sure, I believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity, but I don't believe it's my job to ensure that homosexuals are kept from doing the things that we allowed Brad and Angelina to do.  Indeed, is there any more harm to society in allowing two men to get married in the eyes of the state than allowing a man and a woman to get married and adopt children, only to divorce shortly thereafter?  Surely the institution of marriage and society as a whole suffers more from broken contracts than from an increase in the number of people who can enter into said contracts.

And now, I'd like to turn to Peter Wilson's comments and reply to them, which I failed to do for so long. 

Peter Wilson said:

I think now I see that I disagree with you in some respect.

You said "it seems to me that sin is a concept that can only be understood properly in spiritual terms, something the World cannot comprehend."

If I interpret you correctly, all the world knows of sin is its bad effects on the life we live now and absolutely nothing of eternal consequences. I will construct my ideas around this understanding.

you said "I would simply suggest that we not struggle too much with getting someone who by his very nature can't understand sin or its gravity to stop sinning."

I think that the issue is not that the world can't understand sin but rather that they don't understand sin. Truly, without God we would not have any sort of acknowledgement of the divine evil of our actions. But because God is a God of truth, he has given ALL human beings a General Revelation of the evil of their actions not just in terms of a bad aftermath of their actions, but of a divine law against transgressors. People, in their sin, suppress this truth. Romans 1:17-32 is clear that man's ignorance of sin is not because they can't understand it but because they "exchanged the truth about God for a lie."

Since, by God's grace, the world is in fact able to understand the gravity of their sin through general revelation, we as Christians should speak of it in spiritual terms. No one sees their need of salvation otherwise.

You also said "the World must simply trust us when we speak of grace."

Since I lived 14 years of my life becoming a proud child of the world, I think my point is valid when I say that my understanding of my need for grace did not come through a trust in my parents' assertion of my condition. I had listened to their lecture many times in the past with no effect on my soul. My conviction of sin came directly through the Holy Spirit who warned me of my doom. It was from this conviction that I understood and my life was saved. I believe that a conviction of sin does not come through trust in Christian but through God's self-revelation.

It is true that the gravity of one's sin will never occur to the world through our rantings on the evil of sin. Nor will it occur through any device of ours. It is purely by the grace of God that they will see such a need. But that does not excuse us from the task of speaking this truth. It simply means that God will in fact get the glory from all converted souls for it was His initiative that brought them to Himself. And we have been given the dignity to take part in his plan by being messengers of His truth. We should speak it word for word as it was given to us and God will change the heart of the world and show them their sin and His grace.

I respect you for thinking through this issue and I anticipate your response (I hope I didn't misunderstand you again). Thank you for seeking to be faithful with the gospel. God bless.

I would disagree with you that the world is capable of understanding the gravity of their sin, save through the Holy Spirit's act of regeneration, for in order to understand the gravity of one's sin, one must first understand what he is sinning against.  Now, if that were part of the "general revelation"; that is, if the world understood God and the nature of his infinite goodness (hence the infinite nature of our own evil) and simply turned away from it, where would be the need for salvation?    It would be as if mankind had never fallen, or falls individually. And how could man, in the face of the perfection he was created to enjoy for eternity, turn from it in defiance of his own nature?  For if man is fallen, I see no way that he can look upon God's perfection, and if he can't do that, then I don't believe he can understand the evil of his own sin, except through the Holy Spirit.  Even I as a Christian only understand God's goodness dimly; I can spout about infinity all I like, but I don't really understand it.  It is only a concept I use to remind myself of just how much greater God is than anything I know.

Now I think that we are taking two different paths to say the same thing, or nearly so.  For you would say that it is the Holy Spirit that reveals the true gravity of our sins to us, and I would say the same.  I never intended to suggest that we are the ones who convict others of their sins, only that we have a responsibility to speak the truth, and to speak it in such a way that it will be heard and listened to.  We are not the ones who save people, we only help the Father in much the same way that a child might "help" his earthly father build a house; the Father does not need our work, and we need his support and strength just to do our meager bit of work, which He still uses and delights in.

 

Now, you are right that sin must be spoken of in spiritual terms, for sin is a spiritual concept.  However, my point was that sin (and anything we know to be "spiritual") must not be addressed until we can be sure our message will be properly received; that is to say, we must first ensure that they trust us, and no amount of lecturing on that which is spiritual will yield such a result.

Now I think I get to agree with you, when you say that our understanding of the gravity of our own sin comes from God's self-revelation.  Indeed, it is the Holy Spirit, not us, that prompts a person to come to faith in Christ.  However, I was speaking strictly of our duty as Christians.  You see, I left out any mention of the Holy Spirit's work because (a) we can't affect when or how he acts, and (b) I believe He can work through us, revealing Christ in us.  However, since we can't alter what God does, I found it most expedient to focus on what we can alter, namely our actions and the way we present our message.

Thank you for your comments, and for getting me to think these issues through.  While I may not respect your blogging service (Xanga, har har) I do respect your grasp of these issues, and look forward to your response. 

The Fear of What God Might Become, If We Let Him

I'm afraid my thoughts aren't quite in order right now.  I just feel the urge to write something after listening to "Wilderness" by The OC Supertones, and I fear what I write will make no sense.  If you find this a laborious read, or just plain nonsensical, feel free to skip it or deride me in the comments section.  But don't do both; you may only deride me if you read the whole thing (which at this point, may end up being quite short).

I've been thinking recently about the time that I spent writing for my previous blog, and about my political and religious views back then.  How could I have left Christ out of my consideration of so many issues?  To be sure, there are a great many things I still leave Him out of, but the things I missed before. . . they seem so obvious.  I'm not entirely sure of myself even now, but to think that I had never even considered that the beliefs I now hold might be valid tends to cause a sense of shame; I feel as though I neglected my Savior and God for quite a long time, fantasizing that my own ideas about the world were somehow more applicable than His.  I am rather disappointed to know that I had that in me.

I would like to be able to say that the time I spent clutching beliefs I am now ashamed of was because someone had lied to me.  It would be nice to say that I was a puppet of the Republican Party, that I had been used, and that I was being indoctrinated; because then of course, it wouldn't have been my fault.  I would be able to cast the blame on someone other than myself for all the time that I spent ignoring Christ altogether.  But sadly, I wasn't spouting the ideas of other people, and I was by no means brainwashed.  The ideas I wrote about were mine, and I formed them on my own. 

And that, you see, is exactly the problem. 

When I formed my Republican views, I did so with good intentions.  It made sense:  Sin is bad, so we shouldn't do it, and we should make sure no one else does it either so God will be happy.  If someone does sin, even if they hurt no one, it's our job to ensure that the government punishes them, and that is somehow different than punishing them ourselves.  People who make bad choices just need to buck up and stop sinning, because Jesus told the adulteress to "sin no more."  Surely enforcing the philosophy of "sin no more" is the government's job, and if we can get people to just stop sinning, the world will be a much better place.

You see, the intentions behind this philosophy are good; I meant well, and I wholeheartedly believe that every Christian Republican means well when they vote.  But I do not believe they are right. 

Back to my experience, I formed my Republican views on my own, and I have said that that is why I was forced in the end to leave those views behind.  It was not because I refused to rely on other men for input, for no man is more infallible than another; rather, it was because I chose to found my philosophy on what I saw and what I knew, rather than on Christ.  To be sure, God was in there somewhere (hence my emphasis on sin), but my understanding of Christ was limited then even as it is now.  It was as if I had decided to form my worldview by myself, and then put a Jesus Fish on the back and call it Christian. 

I remember when I'd encounter people who were moderate or independent in their political beliefs because of their convictions as a Christian.  I used to scoff at them; they were wimps, afraid to really stand for anything.  They used Jesus as a cop-out, I thought. . . they used Him as an excuse to stay out of the "Culture War" because they were stupid, or they just didn't care.  I thought it quite funny that they'd use Jesus Christ as an excuse to cancel out such Biblical concepts as sin and the necessity of abstinence from it.  I thought they were crazy for not trying to get everyone to "be good." 

Now I see that they were right.  It isn't about abstaining from sin, it's about being made sinless.  It isn't about being good, it's about being made good.  But I wasn't about to admit that; I didn't understand it, and I didn't want to take the time to.  This is because I was afraid of what it might do to my carefully-constructed belief system.  I had worked so hard to form my Republican philosophy, and was so proud of the fact that no one had ever told me what to believe that I couldn't allow myself to examine its very foundation; if I did that, I knew it would collapse like a house of cards.

Any truly Christian philosophy must begin with Christ.  He is God revealed to us, and God is the source of all things.  In Him all things are complete, and without Him nothing can stand.  I knew, this, of course, and that's why I was continually inviting Him into my worldview; I'd make all the right references to justify what I was saying as "Christian," trying to create something good enough that He would bless it.  But that wasn't what God wanted; I had to give my philosophy to Him, so He could smash it along with all my silly notions of "being good," and start over with Christ as my guide and foundation.  I was afraid of this, afraid of what He might do to my petty intellectual "achievements" if I let Him, so for a very long time I refused to give Him the control to rebuild my philosophy from scratch. 

Now, I don't say any of this to convince you all that, upon changing, I have somehow now stumbled upon the "ultimate truth," or whatnot. . . I am aware of my own persistent limitations, and highly doubt I would know the "ultimate truth" if it kicked me in the face.  However, that is part of the reason that I believe I am at least improving in my pursuit of the truth:  When I wasn't striving to make Christ the center of all my beliefs, I was sure that what I believed was the absolute truth, but now that I am at least trying a little harder (though weakly, no doubt) to let Christ lead me, I have become uneasy with my beliefs, lest my own fallibility obscure my view of where Christ is leading. I now at least care whether or not I am following Him.  Again, I am not sure that everything I stand for is perfectly true, but of one thing I am sure:  I am chasing after the Truth.  I haven't caught it; my humanity prevents me from doing that.  But I am chasing it, and I hope I will be willing to go wherever my pursuit leads and that Christ would continually point me in the direction I must go. 

A Response to a Friend

This message was originally written to a friend who asked me what becomes of good people who are not Christians.  I did my best to explain it adequately before I was kicked off the computer by NetNanny, cruel fiend that she is.  Therefore, please forgive any spelling/grammar/punctuation/logic errors you find in this post, as my writing of it was a bit rushed.   My response was as follows:

...I believe you asked what happens according to Christianity to "virtuous sinners," as it were: people who act nicely, but do not follow Christ. 

To answer, I'll start by explaining what is required for "salvation", or entrance into Heaven.  "Salvation," you see, requires holiness; that is, it requires sinlessness or perfection.  This is because we as human beings were created by a holy and perfect God, and we were created to be holy and perfect (though limited compared to our Creator, as creations tend to be).  According to Christianity, mankind is no longer sinless; he is naturally sinful because God created him with a free will, and man misused that free will to rebel against God.  This submission to sin rather than God resulted in what we now call "sin nature," or the fact that man is, in his natural state, prone to sin and incapable of entering Heaven.

Man naturally sins against God, sin of course being the transgression against God's Law as revealed in the Ten Commandments.  You see, it may be that not every person murders, or steals, or commits adultery, but in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (which can be found in the book of Matthew), He makes two key points:  First, that the physical act of killing someone is not required for the sin of murder, for even to hate someone or wish them dead is to commit murder in one's heart; and second, He said that any man who breaks any part of the Law is as guilty as if he had broken the whole Law.  This is because a single act of sin is an expression of complete rebellion against and rejection of an infinitely holy God.  No one sin is any worse than any other, because they all represent the same thing: rebellion, like Adam's original rebellion or act of disobedience in Genesis. 
Now, if we know that even to hate is as much a sin as murder, and even to lust is as much a sin as adultery, if we know that a single sin signifies a complete turning from God, then it stands to reason that even people we see as "good" have sinned, and thus are not deserving of entrance to Heaven.  I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I've broken God's Law, and I really don't believe it is possible to keep God's Law.  This is supported by Romans Chapter 3, among other scriptures. 

This sounds like bad news, but from the Christian point of view, it's not.  The Law is unkeepable; that is, we aren't at all capable of doing what it takes to make ourselves holy and sinless.  However, I believe that God made a way for us to become holy and sinless.  According to the Bible, "The wages of sin is death"; that's why the Jews used to sacrifice animals as payment for their sins.  However, Christians believe that God became man in the form of Jesus Christ, and He offered himself as a sacrifice, to be killed as payment for our sins.  Thus it is possible for us to be made holy and perfect apart from keeping the Law, and thus be capable of entering Heaven.  And the great thing is that the only requirement for being made perfect is to believe in Jesus Christ as God incarnate, the Savior of mankind.  But I'm not talking about some half-stepping "if it'll get me out of Hell" prayer which is borne out of fear rather than belief.  I'm talking about true belief, belief that causes a person to act upon it.  For doesn't anything we really believe in drive us to some sort of action?

How to arrive at this belief is a matter that can only be dealt with on an individual level.  Some people can be brought to such a belief through a persuasive and logical argument, while others must experience something that to them proves God's existence.  I do not know how any person can be brought to belief; that's God's job.  I as a Christian can simply speak the truth as best I know how, and pray that God uses it to help someone begin to understand that He exists, and is worth knowing.  He is worth knowing because He provided a way out of sin, and into perfection.  He did, in fact, save us, and for that I believe He deserves everything I have to give, as little as that may be. 

Now, I say all this to explain for you how God can justly condemn someone who has done their best to be perfect. You see, it's not about doing your best at all; a virtuous sinner might have been a very nice person, but they still sinned, and furthermore they missed the entire point of God's offer of salvation.  It wasn't about being good, for no man can do that; it was about being made good, freely through Christ. 

Lessons for the New Year

As anyone who has been reading my blogs for a while knows, I do not make New Years resolutions.  This is because I have very low self-esteem (due to having been homeschooled), and I can't bring myself to set goals that I know I'll never achieve.  That seems to be a rather stupid way to start out a new year. So, in place of these silly things that people call "Resolutions," I prefer to reflect on all that I've learned in the past year, and type it up into a post on my blog for the convenience of my readers, who might benefit (though only slightly) from the things that I have learned.  So pay close attention children; we don't want your reading of my post to be a waste of time.  Learn from what I have to say, even if you have to try very hard to find something worth learning. 

So... What did I learn this year? 

17.) The Truth isn't necessarily to be found in the place you always thought you could find it.

16.) I don't know quite so much as I thought I did.

15.) I'm still a sucker.  I figured that out two years ago, and I have yet to do anything about it.

14.) Contrary to logic, the smarter a person is, the more confused he gets by the whole disaster known as being a teenager.  That is, the more brains you have, the more there is for your hormones to mess with.

13.) Jeremy Camp has one song.  That's it.  One song.  At his concerts, his band keeps playing the same four chords the whole time, and Jeremy just changes up his lyrics every once in a while (in between altar calls).

12.) Being a nice guy won't really get you anywhere, but at least nice guys can feel good about themselves.

11.) If you want kids to call you "Sir," grow facial hair. 

10.) There are some ideas and feelings that the English language (and language in general) is insufficient to express. 

9.) When it is necessary to convey such ideas and feelings, don't feel bad when you end up sounding like an idiot.  You can't win, you can only try to sound like as nice of an idiot as possible.

8.) Dating, at least for me, is a rather bad idea.

7.)  Indie music is the best.  Do yourself a favor and check out Strike Four and Manodestra, for starters.

6.) Despite what you might think, moshing is great fun.

5.)  If you're gonna make a movie about Mayans, and you realize halfway through production that your movie sucks, don't try to salvage it with more soiled loincloths, natives rolling around in the mud and an underwater birth scene.  It just doesn't work. 

4.)  If you really wanna see such a movie about Mayans, make sure it won't cost you anything.  It's really not worth it.

3.) Life is like a box of chocolates... You want to give yours to someone you love, but if they're allergic to it, you're screwed.  (Did I really just say that?  God help me, I must be retarded.)

2.)  The more a person means to you, the harder it is to tell them so, and the more you want to tell them. This is rather infuriating and is part of the reason I will most likely die young.

1.) It actually is possible to leave ten pegs in that peg game at the Cracker Barrel.  Thanks to Sarah Liz for proving this.  :-)

Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Shot of NyQuil

Hi everyone, and merry Christmas from all (one) of us here at Quicksilver Commentary!  I'd like to apologize for not responding yet to Peter Wilson in the comment thread on my last post; I will respond, but I've been sick with a 101-103 degree fever since Thursday.  You see, I thought it might be in everyone's best interest if I avoided writing anything of consequence until it could be concretely determined that I'm not delirious. 

So I hope you all are having a very merry Christmas, and that we are all keeping in mind not only "the reason for the season," but the reason that we are able to come freely to the Father as his children, recreated to be like the One who was born two thousand years ago to be crucified in our place.  Our God is a good God, infinitely so, and moreover, He is worth knowing.  Let us use this time to remind ourselves of all He has done for us, beginning with Christ's birth and sacrifice, and in light of these things, let us all seek to know Him more.

And with that, I'll be off, for my fever is still pestering me.  I do believe a bit of NyQuil would do me some good; I could use a good night's rest before tomorrow. 

 

For God's Glory,
Jacob Thrasher

The Slim, Laughable Possibility That Jesus Might Be Right

In my latest debates over my developing beliefs in the area of politics, I've run into an unprecedented amount of opposition from those who I thought trusted my reasoning ability.  Indeed, I am continually amazed at just how quickly people's opinions can turn when I stop saying what they want me to say.  But no matter, I still love those people, and very much hope they will not reject me for straying from the Republican party.  It would be nice if they would consider what I have to say, like they did when I wrote under the name "NeoFascist?," but my greatest concern is that they would not turn me away based on my political beliefs.  It has always been my policy that personal politics mean nothing compared to friendship, for I have met a great many people that I do not like from every political party, and some that I do like from every party as well.  I would hope that no one who reads this would judge me based on the fact that I am not a member of any political party; indeed, I can see no shame in standing alone, if one has the stomach for it.

I have spent a while trying to convince people that God might be best glorified apart from the Republican party, but it seems that I was operating under the assumption that my point of view would be respected thanks to my past writings, and my committment to follow wherever my search for truth has led me.  This assumption appears to be wrong, so I think it might be time to back up, repeat myself, and defend the thought process that has led me to believe that perhaps politics is not the answer to all of society's problems. 

My questioning of Republican ideals began when I, as a Christian, decided that it might be a good idea to do all I can to lead people to Christ.  Being the rather contemplative person that I am when confronted with a task, I began thinking about how best a person might be brought to Christ; I remained stuck there for quite some time, having been a Christian all my life, and not knowing what it is like to come into the faith from the outside.  However, it seemed quite logical that if any Christian wants to spread the Gospel, he would start by ensuring that what he says would be heard. 

A clever first step, and one I was quite proud of.  Assuming a person is a Christian and understands the Gospel, the first step in spreading his message is to figure out a way to get people to hear it.  Now, many Christians at many different times have used many different methods for getting their message to the world.  Some of them might put their message in music that sounds suspiciously like some popular band.  Others might decide to broadcast their message on television.  Still others might write books, or blog (as I do).  It seemed to me that there was no shortage of ways to get people to hear what one has to say; ways that ranged from interesting to attempted sneakiness, which simply makes one look desperate (yay, Relevance).  Indeed, when it comes to shouting loud enough to be heard, it seems that Christians have all their bases covered.

So where are all the converts?  It seems to me that there are quite a lot of people who are not Christians... people who may or may not believe in God, but seem to take an unbelievable amount of joy from the fact that they are not Christians and do not like Christians in the least.  My first reaction, back when I bought the Republican party platform hook, line and sinker, was to view such people as the problem, and debate them until they were nothing but a quivering pulp.  A good intellectual pummelling was what was needed to quiet those sinners down so that other sinners could hear our message, I thought. 

Slowly, the sheer absurdity of such a belief sunk in on me.  I was so focused on getting my way, and making the other side sit down and shut up that I had forgotten that they were the very people I was trying to reach.  The people I was arguing with were as much in need of the Gospel as anyone else, and they had been hearing my message, and the messages of other Christians for a very long time.  But they weren't converted. 

So it seemed that making oneself heard is not all that is required for reaching someone for Christ.  I puzzled over this for some time, until I realized that the problem wasn't that these non-Christians couldn't hear me... it was that they weren't listening.  So I thought I'd (yet again) argue them into listening.

That didn't work.  No matter how hard I tried, and no matter how many debates I won, I was amazed to find that non-Christians would not listen.  So it was back to the drawing board for me, as I thought intently about what it would take to get them to listen to me.  Now obviously, I am not them, so it was rather hard to figure out what I could do to get them to listen.  So my first step was to see what other Christians were doing to get the World to listen to their message.  It seemed that the tactic of choice among the majority of Evangelical Christians was to hide references to the Gospel in talk about Harry Potter, The Matrix or Survivor/Big Brother/Fear Factor/Elimidate/Extreme Makeover, and hope that this presentation of the Gospel was sneaky enough to get somebody saved. 

This clearly wasn't working.  Somehow, I found myself unsurprised by the fact that non-Christians don't want to listen to us when we insult their intelligence by trying to lure them into a church building to "get saved."  So I determined that Relevance wasn't the way to get non-Christians to listen to my message.

As I struggled to think of a way to present the Christian message in a way that sinners would listen to and appreciate, I was struck by something quite obvious:  I was every bit as insulted as the non-Christians were by so-called "Relevance," and I tended to listen more to preachers who did not restrict their sermons to sports analogies and Disney movies, so perhaps it could be said that non-Christians would be more likely to listen to a message that I would listen to.  That is to say, perhaps they'd listen to someone they respect, presenting a message that doesn't try to be sneaky.

This belief was backed up by a passage from First Thessalonians 4, a chapter which partially details the Christian life.  Verses 11 and 12 say this:

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

So maybe it is a good idea to win the respect of those who do not understand our beliefs, I thought.  From there, the question is what on earth will they respect? 

I'm not entirely sure of the answer yet, but I can tell you part of it.  Many of them don't respect most Evangelical Christians.  Many more don't respect the Republican Party.  What they DO respect is a person who cares about the pain they're experiencing.  As unbelievable as it may seem to the Republican Party, those who oppose Republicans are entirely capable of respecting and considering an alternate point of view, if the person presenting that alternate point of view first proves that they are capable of caring about someone who isn't exactly like them.

Consider Christ's actions.  Everywhere He went, He drew followers, but He did so by first caring for their physical needs.  Once He had done that, the person He was helping would begin to trust Him to care for their spiritual needs as well.  This is only natural; a person who is in sin is only a physical being, knowing nothing of the spiritual.  Their physical and emotional world is all they know, and that world is full of pain.  Now we come to them preaching about a spiritual world, in which things we know to be joy and peace are seen by those outside our faith as pain and suffering, and we expect them to listen to our message as though we have proven ourselves trustworthy.  Indeed, we have no right to expect anything other than the scorn of the World until we have proven ourselves trustworthy to them, by caring for their physical and emotional pain as Christ did.  Once we have done that, then they will begin to trust us with other aspects of their being; when we have proven trustworthy with what is physical and emotional, then the World will trust us in the things which are spiritual, things they cannot yet see or feel.

This is where I began to consider leaving the Republican party.  I am a Christian, called to exhibit active compassion and gain the respect of outsiders, and I began to realize that I could not do either as a Republican, at least not as well as I could from outside the party.  You see, I can find very little real compassion in the Republican party platform; it is all about telling people how wrong they are, how they shouldn't be doing what they're doing, and how they should really be doing things our way.  I find little compassion with the way the party handles issues like abortion, gay marriage and illegal immigration.  Instead, I find a lack of forgiveness and concern for people who are in sin.  It is as though the Republican party has taken it upon themselves to punish sinners, because God can't be trusted to do that Himself.  Maybe it isn't our place to pass judgment on women who have abortions; maybe it's just our job to help heal the part of her that caused her to need an abortion.  Maybe it's not our job to keep homosexuals from having relationships, or getting equal rights from a secular state; maybe it's just our job to love them, and perhaps eventually show them that they are not living as God would have them.  Maybe it's not our job to deport people who immigrate here illegally because they can't get in legally; maybe it's just our job to keep out as many illegals as we can, and turn the rest into productive citizens. 

All these things are more compassionate than standing around on street corners shouting about how abortion is murder, homosexual activity is wrong, and illegal immigrants are stupid and should be deported.  Maybe abortion is murder, and maybe homosexuality is wrong; heck, maybe illegal immigrants deserve to be deported.  But we as Christians are not commanded to punish those who do wrong; we are commanded to gain their respect, and let Christ change them from the inside out. 
It is no use saying that democracy excuses us from our obligation to gain the respect of outsiders.  In a representative democracy, the deportation of an illegal immigrant by your elected representatives is the same as if you had done the deporting yourself, because you used your vote to influence the government to punish someone you couldn't bring yourself to punish.  The same goes for abortion; many wish to end abortion, but can't bring themselves to do anything about it, so they just vote to make it illegal.  If that's compassion, then I imagine football coaches will all be sitting on Jesus' lap in heaven.  To exhibit true, active compassion would be to help the woman considering an abortion to find an alternative that is good for the child AND the woman herself.  This would require legislation as well as active involvement in the lives of such women.

And again I say, I see very little of this active compassion coming from the Republican party.  There are a few beacons of hope, most of whom work in abortion clinics or are just open-minded enough to realize that homosexuals are in fact still human, but the majority of Republicans seem to be blissfully unconcerned with being truly compassionate.  They do not vote with compassion, and they do not show active compassion in their everyday lives (unless, of course, the occasional "aww, that's sad" counts as compassion).  This isn't to say there is no truth within the Republican party... I do respect their efforts to live righteous lives, but their expectations of sinners do nothing to help them come to Christ.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that there is a more active sort of compassion coming from the Democratic party.  It's a sort of compassion that gives of itself (or others, if we're talking about government welfare), and does genuinely care for the physical wellbeing of others.  However, this sort of compassion is no truer than the Republican sort.  While Republicans exhibit a sadly passive kind of compassion, doing little of consequence to solve society's problems, Democrats exhibit an active compassion with no direction but emotion, and no concern or understanding of that which is spiritual.  The Republicans' compassion is the compassion of a Christian who has forgotten what it was like to be lost (and thus is of no use to the Lost), while the Democrats' compassion is the compassion of one lost person to another, which is active but offers no real help (thus it too is of no use to the Lost).  Thus I do not wish to claim either party.  Both hold a kernel of truth, but both are incapable of helping those in need of a Savior.

Now, there is an alarming number of people out there who would say that since I'm not a Republican, that means I must be a Liberal and a Democrat, thus I am not worth listening to.  I've been over this before, but let me reassure you one last time, I am neither a Liberal nor a Democrat. I accept the Bible in its entirety, as it is literally and contextually read, and I do not believe that morality is in any way subjective.  So there, I'm not a Democrat.  But I'm also not a Republican.  I'm a Christian, plain and simple, and that alone is enough.

So I began looking for the best way to bring people to Christ, and I reached a conclusion that placed me outside Republican party lines.  Am I wrong for not sticking with a party?  No.  I'm not here to please men.  My purpose is to glorify God; that is why we are all here, and it is the noblest cause conceivable.  I maintain that God is most glorified when a person comes to be by saved Christ's blood, as it is a testimony to the infinite goodness and grace of our omnipotent God, and I believe that if we are to concern ourselves with bringing others to Christ for the sole purpose of God's glory, then we must sever ourselves from any school of thought that emphasizes something other than glorifying God.  If that means leaving a political party, then so be it.  That's what I did, though that may or may not be God's call for other Christians. 

But whether you find yourself on the right side of the aisle or the left, if you are a fellow Christian, do not condemn me for standing in the middle.  I am firm in my convictions, and my beliefs do not change with the wind; I do not stand on the fence, except to proclaim the silliness of having a fence at all.  For though we are flesh and blood, our fight is not against flesh and blood, so it is quite unnecessary to separate ourselves from other flesh and blood that we might shout at them from the safety of our own side about how wrong and sinful they are.  That isn't Christlike, and it isn't right.  Christ didn't cut anyone off from himself; He got his hands dirty helping all those who would accept his help, whether they were gentiles, Roman soldiers, or adulterers.  He did not condemn those who sinned... He cared for their needs and helped them stop sinning, not by force or legislation, but by inner transformation. 

Maybe we should try that sometime.  Who knows, Jesus might have actually known what He was doing.

Imagine that.

Pro-Life To a Fault?

What makes a life?  Is it the heartbeat or brainwaves, the act of being born or a child's very conception?  Just when is it that life really begins?  These are the questions that drive what might have formerly been called the debate about abortion before it reached its current polarizing extremes of rhetoric.  Indeed, the two sides of the argument, in an effort to associate their views with some vague concept that is seen by most as overwhelmingly good, have dubbed themselves "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life," and encouraged the public to pigeonhole themselves by jumping onboard with one system of beliefs or the other, and to take up arms against the opposing side as though this battle of the heart were to be waged against flesh and blood by means of intellect and legislation. 

Both parties in this argument have taken the mindset of "if we can force the other side to do things our way, it won't matter if they see things our way," and this emphasis on enforcing conformity to a law (or a potential law) has succeeded only in causing a breakdown of communications between the so-called "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" crowds.  No longer can the issue be intelligently debated for the entire country to hear, if that were even possible to begin with; now everyone from Washington, D.C. to Berkeley, California has their own sound-bites that they like to repeat whenever the issue of a woman's right to choose happens to conflict with an infant's right to actually be born, and they will gladly repeat those sound-bites until they turn blue so long as it keeps them from considering that life may actually begin before a child takes his first breath, or that sometimes a woman has a legitimate reason for terminating a pregnancy.

But enough of this "both sides are stupid" crap.  I'm anti-abortion and you all know it, and quite frankly I think that the Republican party and Christians in general have done a spectacularly horrible job of protecting children's right to life and the mother's spiritual, emotional and physical well-being.  A colossal failure if ever there was one.  To be sure, I'm quite opposed to the point of view that says an unborn child may be freely disposed of, but if any Christian truly wishes to see some sin or social ill come to an end, he is denser than the whole of the Pro-Choice lobby if he thinks that can be achieved apart from the regenerative power of Christ.  Christ's blood is the only thing that can end sin, so would it not be considered idolatry to fancy that legislation and the government can usurp that power?

Imagine that the Pro-Lifers get what they want.  Laws are passed and enforced that ban all types of abortion, and life is good.  But have the social ills stopped?  Of course not!  In the wake of the phasing out of legal abortions will rise illegal abortions, and while this is certainly not a reason to halt all progress toward the protection of unborn children's rights, it does cause one to think that maybe there is an evil greater than the taking of innocent life at work in the country's abortion battle.  Maybe there's more to abortion than simply murder (something the Pro-Life lobby refuses to consider). 

Perhaps we can ban abortions, but the root cause of abortion will still remain, and it will continue to cause trouble and social ills forever if it is not confronted as it is.  To forbid abortions as things stand now would be like knocking a couple of leaves off of a weed in your front yard; if you hope to end your problem without destroying its root, you might as well not be working at all. When abortions end, unwanted pregnancies will remain. 

Indeed, you might wish to convince people to stop creating unwanted pregnancies by making them harder to deal with, but in the end it is not the consequences of his actions that cause a sinner to stop sinning. This has never worked, and it never will; if it did, then I'd probably be the first to start a mass exodus from Christianity to Islam.  The fact is, though, that we can never be made to keep the law apart from Christ, and while it is acceptable to keep a sinner from infringing upon the rights of others, it is not acceptable to keep a sinner from sinning in other ways.  I'm quite sorry to say it, but I do not believe Christians have the right to legislate against any sort of sex between consenting adults.  That doesn't mean that I believe "anything goes"; I place myself quite firmly in the moral absolutist camp.  I simply don't believe we can do any good by legislating against some sin that doesn't harm anyone except those who partake of it.

But I digress. . .

If as I said, abortion is only a problem that can be solved by first solving its root problem, that is, by eliminating the demand for abortions, what on earth can we do if it is wrong to legislate against sex between consenting adults?  Because after all, even if you wish to argue that such impropriety is harmful for the resulting child due to the situation he is born into, it is the conception of the child that leads to the demand for an abortion, not the sex itself.  The truth is that the solution to the problem of the demand for abortions is for Christians to stop trying to force sinners not to sin (that is, to not have sex outside marriage or conceive children they don't want), and start caring about both the unborn children and the sinners that find them inconvenient.

What a concept.  Christians caring about everybody. Maybe Jesus not only loves the little children, but also the adulterers, the fornicators, the gays, and the girls who were raped.  Maybe Christians should start caring for them too. 

You see, caring about someone does not mean telling them to buck up, that their child is a gift and if they don't want it they can carry it for nine months and give it up for adoption.  To my knowledge, Jesus didn't tell anyone who was hurting that they needed to "suck it up," though I might just be reading the wrong translation.  The Christian thing to do is not to enforce morality among the masses, who are too lost for it to do them any good.  The Christian thing to do would be to see and understand the pain of a girl who has been raped, or the needs of a girl who never knew her father, so she tries to fill that hole with other men who seem to keep getting her pregnant.  Would Christ tell either of these to keep their children?  It seems that both of them have some things they need to work through, and neither would be fit to raise a child; to force them to go through with their pregnancy would only compound their problems, hence the demand for abortions. 

And yet, as Christians we must object to abortion.  We believe that life begins either at conception, or sometime before a child is actually born, and thus we view abortion as the infringement of one individual upon another's right to life and a completely invalid way to end a pregnancy.  We have no trouble recognizing that abortion is the wrong way to terminate a pregnancy; we just can't seem to fathom that some pregnancies might in fact need to be terminated.  We think that surely a woman lost enough to have her third child out of wedlock with her third consecutive man has no right to end the pregnancy, whether for her sake or the child's.  At best, she should have to finish the pregnancy to "teach her a lesson," right?

Of course not.  If Jesus thought we needed to be taught lessons about how bad sin is, he would have let the adulteress be stoned.  As we know, though, He chose to rescue her rather than condemn her; He showed her He cared by rescuing her from the physical consequences of her sin, that she might trust Him to pay for the spiritual consequences as well.  For a sinner knows only the flesh and the things that are of the flesh, and if we do not rescue him from things that are of the flesh, then how will he ever begin to trust us or our Master in spiritual things which he knows nothing of?

So then, if it can be said that some pregnancies are unnecessary, and yet abortion is murder, and yet we cannot prevent unwanted pregnancies, what choice are we then left with except to provide an alternative to abortion?  Wouldn't it be great if we stopped working against all the hurting women who, in their minds, just don't want to have their kids, and started working with them toward a goal that would prove that we care about them, and help their children have a chance at life?  Wouldn't that be more effective at solving the problem of abortion and all the problems that would come with banning it (illegal abortions, infanticide, more neglected/abused children)?  I admit, I don't know what alternatives to abortion exist; adoption is indeed a legitimate one (and one which should be given far more emphasis than it is), and I seem to remember hearing something about the testing of artificial wombs, though I'm not sure if children could yet be transplanted into them. 

You see, I'm not condoning sin by seeking to help those in pain.  I'm not trying to tell anyone that it's perfectly okay to go out and make babies you don't want or can't feed. What I'm trying to do is make the point that sin and unwanted babies will always be with us, no matter how we may wish to make the unrighteous become righteous without God.  Our best bet is not to eradicate all sin in the world, but rather to cope with it, and use it that God's grace might be made evident.  Indeed, a world that is wallowing in and fully aware of their own depravity would be much more receptive to salvation than a people who have been forced to act as though they were saved all their lives. 

What I've just written is not Republican.  In fact, given what I keep hearing from the Right, it's probably not even Pro-Life, since it deals with the more effective solution of making abortion obsolete rather than legislating against it. What I've written isn't on any party platform that I know of; it is, quite simply, a solution from someone who may not be a Republican but is without a doubt a Christian.  Take it or leave it. 

I'm Not Dead, Just Sick

Yeah, so I got back into town on Monday and had all manner of grand schemes to write posts that would make your head spin.  But then I got sick, and have spent the last few days wondering what my body thinks it's doing.  Anyway, it's been pretty annoying trying to think about the sort of thing I like to write about, only to find my mind drifting away to other topics without my consent.  Things seems to be getting back on track now though, so maybe a new post will show itself soon.

But just maybe.  If you've read my blogs for any length of time, you know it's probably a bad idea to get your hopes up. Your best bet is to comment frequently and get your friends to do the same, so that I'll see the comments and be reminded that I have a blog which a few people actually read.  Then I will write, and you will read, as will your friends that you sent here to make me write in the first place, and one of them will think I'm really cool and nominate me for blog awards, or help make me famous.

Speaking of fame... Ah, nuts.  I forgot what I was gonna say.  Whatever. 

There's no easier way to end a post than that.   

Because You All Wanted To Know...

I'm not in Rome right now.  See, there's this place called Asbury College, and I'm visiting there for their Fall Preview Weekend. 

It's almost over now, just a couple more things to do tomorrow and I'll be done, and I'm exhausted.  Can't really write a lot because my brain is fried, but I very much like the college.  It's actually much better than I had imagined, because it's a small private Christian college that is serious about their academics but is also rather uncompromising in their faith.  Great place, and I'd recommend all my college-bound readers look into it. 

So yeah.  Check out Asbury.  I love it. 

And I also love Showbread.  But that's a different story entirely.