Worthwhile Organizations

November 2007

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Brave Saint Saturn

  • Brave Saint Saturn: The Light of Things Hoped For
    Possibly the most compelling and well-executed album I have ever listened to, "The Light of Things Hoped For" by Brave Saint Saturn deserves its five-star rating. The concept album, which happens to be the second installment from BS2, continues to follow the USS Gloria on its mission to study Saturn and its moons. Stylistically, this project from Reese Roper and other members of Five Iron Frenzy (R.I.P.) very nearly defies description. They have been referred to as space-pop or astro-rock, though even these monikers do not do the style justice. Some of the songs on the album are simple acoustic ballads, while others make use of synthesizers, xylophones, and other instruments that are too often neglected by rock bands. Lyrically, BS2 hits a homerun with this album, with songs like "The Sun Also Rises," "Heart Still Beats," and "Daylight" giving testimony to their Christianity, and "Enamel," "Anastasia," and "Babies' Breath" speaking of love, and love lost. Brave Saint Saturn is an unorthodox band, nearly unknown in the mainstream and censored by their former label Tooth and Nail Records, but none of this detracts in the least from the stellar quality (no pun intended) of their latest album. The album is unavailable on iTunes, and only partially available on most other music downloading services, but it is well worth the price and shipping costs to order the cd from vendors online. Check out Brave Saint Saturn's "The Light of Things Hoped For" today! (*****)

Roper

  • Roper: Brace Yourself for the Mediocre
    "Brace Yourself for the Mediocre," is the first (and possibly only) album by Roper, the latest band started by Five Iron Frenzy and Brave Saint Saturn frontman Reese Roper. With Reese's characteristic high vocals, a bouncy pop-punk sound that resembles Five Iron Frenzy on speed (and with synthesizers instead of horns), and the intelligent lyrics that Reese can't seem to help writing, Roper's new album was made to be great. From start to finish, the album refuses to slow down, turning out one smart pop-punk anthem after another throughout the entire thirteen-song album. Whether the song involves social and religious commentary (e.g. "Quicksilver," "Hello Lamewads") or is just a playful exercise for Reese's tongue-in-cheek sense of humor (e.g. "Vendetta," "1985"), it's sure to be stuck in your head for a long time to come. (*****)

Showbread

  • Showbread -

    Showbread: No Sir, Nihilism Is Not Practical
    It's spastic, it's chaotic, and it's a masterpiece through and through. In No Sir, Nihilism Is Not Practical, Showbread struck a power chord with even this opponent of screamo. Think before you buy, for this album is not for the faint of heart, but if you can handle a seizurrific combination of screams and industrial-strength keytar, then this album is worth the money. Every song on the album is great for those who are tolerant of screamo or are looking to try something new, but even those of more sensitive tastes can appreciate songs like "Matthias Replaces Judas," (which by the way, features a guest appearance from Reese Roper). As an album, "No Sir..." stands in its disjointedness as a cohesive whole, and is a great investment... for those who can handle it, anyway. (*****)

  • Showbread -

    Showbread: Age of Reptiles
    "Age of Reptiles," Showbread's latest release, proves to be quite a departure from their previous spaz-rock album "No Sir, Nihilism Is not Practical." There is less screaming in the new album, and more straight-up alternative rock, perhaps to appease the faint of heart who no doubt went into cardiac arrest upon hearing music from Showbread's first album. Regardless, "Age of Reptiles" is a strong showing from the "raw rock" band, as they prove that they are not as one-dimensional as reviewers might have feared after the release of "No Sir..." A bit too polished at times, "Reptiles" still hits the mark on almost every song, and accomplishes something that "No Sir" did not... It plays songs melodically enough that listeners can sing along. (****)

Relient K

  • Relient K -

    Relient K: MMHMM
    As Relient K matures, they continue to amaze listeners who thought they just couldn't get any better. Though the band certainly had a lot of spunk when they put out their earlier albums (all the way through "The Anatomy of Tongue in Cheek"), they didn't to strike gold until their release of MMHMM, a lyrically and musically mature album with a pop-punk-done-right sound. Certainly an album that is worth the buy. (****)

  • Relient K -

    Relient K: Apathetic EP
    Relient K's latest work, the Apathetic EP, is just a continuation of this band's prolonged stroke of genius. Continuing the line of thought that produced "MMHMM," the Apathetic EP gives us four new songs (two electric, two involving Matt Thiessen and his piano) and three acoustic versions of previous songs ("Be My Escape," "Which to Bury, Us or the Hatchet," and "Over Thinking"), all of which add up to a great EP to whet the appetite of fans waiting to see what this band will think of next. (bonus: The band also released an acoustic version of "Who I Am Hates Who I've Been" apart from the Apathetic EP, and it makes a great buy off of iTunes as well.) (****)

  • Relient K -

    Relient K: Five Score and Seven Years Ago

    How embarrassing. After at the very least two amazing albums and an EP, Relient K ends their streak of great music by popping out this monstrosity. The only words that come to mind after listening to this album several times are "What were they THINKING?!" The hooks are tired, the lyrics are uninspired, and the album is entirely disappointing. Even the potentially epic ballad "Deathbed" descends into preachy inanity by the second half of the song, though its first five and a half minutes are worth a listen. Do yourself a favor and don't waste your money on this album: Instead, head over to iTunes and spend a few bucks on the highlights of the album (which are shamefully few) "Faking My Own Suicide," "Deathbed," "Come Right Out and Say It," and depending on your tolerance level for the poppish, "Must Have Done Something Right." I know it's hard, but if you love Relient K, it's probably best that you not listen to the rest of the album; just wait it out, surely they'll return to their former glory on their next CD... Right? (**)

Emery

  • Emery -

    Emery: The Weak's End
    There is only one word to describe Emery's first major release: Tiresome. The Weak's End, an album with a very nice title and a great opening track, simply fails to deliver throughout the rest of the cd. Starting out with "Walls," which is perhaps Emery's best song to date, the album eventually descends into a mass of songs that are at best boring, and at worst downright frustrating. The first 2-4 songs on "The Weak's End" are in fact rather catchy, and certainly worth a listen (or a buy off of iTunes), but the entire album is a bit disappointing, with songs that run together or sound very much the same, and music which makes the listener dread reading the lyrics, for fear that they are as inane as the chord progressions and throbbing post-######## beat. Emery does in fact have a great deal of potential, but aside from "Walls" and "A Ponytail Parade," they did not at all reach it on "The Weak's End." (**)

Number One Gun

  • Number One Gun -

    Number One Gun: Promises for the Imperfect
    A little bit emo, a little bit rock and roll, Number One Gun pulls out a mediocre showing with their latest album "Promises for the Imperfect." The album starts off strong, with four or five catchy songs, but then falls off into the abyss of musical and lyrical cliches. The first half of the album, though, is great, and well worth buying off of iTunes (or whatever legal music downloading service you choose). Check them out today! (***)

eLi

  • :
    eLi is quite simply a talented musician. Most of his music is acoustic, and his songs very personal, often dealing with past experiences, persevering in the face of opposition, or simply comfort in the midst of a storm. Even if you don't like acoustic/folk music, don't count eLi out until you've given him a chance.

Eleventyseven

  • Eleventyseven -

    Eleventyseven: Eleventyseven and the Land of Fake Believe
    Eleventyseven's breakout album is nothing but fun. And that's pretty much it. Oh, I guess I should say more... But what is there to say about a band this crazy? They call themselves "Eleventyseven," a made-up number, and their most popular band t-shirt bears the slogan "Save the Unicorns!" How on earth could anyone take this band seriously? Well... you don't really need to. Sure, they're a little on the crazy side, but they're just out to have fun. To the band's credit, they are capable of writing serious songs, such as "MySpace," "Teenage Heartbreak" and "More Than a Revolution" in addition to typical (though catchy) pop-punk songs about breaking up and making up. While this synth-punk band really breaks no new ground musically or lyrically, they have a kind of energy that will serve them well as they grow. Eleventyseven's live show is wild and entertaining, and the band's music manages to stay focused on things more important than the teen angst that marks so many similar bands. Their album is worth looking into if you're a pop-punk fan in need of some good, light-hearted fun. (***)

« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 28, 2006

Free Derek Webb

So what happens when a Christian artist with a lot to say decides to put out a new album, and makes it available for free via the internet?  Why, FreeDerekWebb.com happens!  If you don't know who Derek Webb is, then perhaps you'll remember another name:  Caedmon's Call.  Caedmon's Call was a Christian band with a folk flair, for whom Derek Webb was the lead singer.  Now of course, Caedmon's Call is no more, and Derek has embarked on a solo career which has yielded three full-length albums, including his most recent venture Mockingbird, which is offered for free download at FreeDerekWebb.com

Mockingbird is a strong album, with a strong message.  The title track starts things off, with Derek singing about truth, and his duty to it ("I can't afford to pay for most of what I say, so it's a lucky thing that the truth's public domain"), and the album continues with an attack on a Christian culture that seeks to bind itself to "a new law" (hence the title of Track 2) rather than learning to "live like free men."

More issues that Derek tackles in his album:  The misconception that Jesus was a "White middle-class Republican" ("A King & A Kingdom"), the Christian reaction to war ("My Enemies are Men Like Me"), and the pervasive-yet-largely-ignored materialism in the American church ("Rich Young Ruler").

Mockingbird is easily one of the most intelligent Christian albums released in recent memory, and everything about it, right down to its means of distribution (free internet downloads) is intended to get people talking and thinking about their faith.  To join the conversation, do yourself a favor and go download the album.  Listen to it, and keep an open mind about what you're hearing.  Keep in mind, if only for a minute, that Jesus wasn't a white middle-class Republican, and that as much as it often pains us to admit it, our enemies really are men like us. 

It is rather humbling indeed.

Mockingbird by Derek Webb - Track Listing

  1. Mockingbird
  2. A New Law
  3. A King and a Kingdom
  4. I Hate Everything (But You)
  5. Rich Young Ruler
  6. A Consistent Ethic of Human Life
  7. My Enemies are Men Like Me
  8. Zeros and Ones
  9. In God We Trust
  10. Please, Before I Go
  11. Love Is Not Against The Law

October 27, 2006

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones...

It has come to my attention that I need to clarify my beliefs for some of my friends, who seem to fear that I've abandoned the Conservative cause in favor of Liberalism.  So, in order to defend myself from accusations that I am a pansy, Liberal, Democrat, Commie or any other such word that Republicans use for "wimp genuinely cares for people who are hurting," I have decided to briefly describe my views for you all.

First and foremost, I am a Christian.  I believe in salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and I would like to think that I lean toward theological Conservatism.  This has not changed, nor will it ever.

I believe the Bible is true in its entirety, and I believe that we as Christians are called to live upright lives, which means that I am morally Conservative. In accordance with scripture, I believe that abortion is in fact murder, and the homosexual lifestyle is in fact wrong, just in case you were wondering.

I believe that since the Bible is true in its entirety, and in the Bible we are commanded to be imitators of Christ, we as Christians have a duty to care for people who are hurting.  Oddly enough, this includes women who are contemplating abortion, girls who are too young to carry and have a baby, and people who struggle with homosexuality.  I'm a little confused on where this puts my social beliefs, but it is rather clear to me that the majority of Conservatives agree with me only in principle, not in action.  They say they care for the starving children in Africa, people with AIDS, and pregnant girls who were raped, but they in the end they only offer these hurting people un-Christian advice like "Life's hard, suck it up."  On the flip side, most Liberals are willing to care for these hurting people, but do so for the wrong reasons, and in the wrong way.  Government welfare is the WRONG way to help the poor, and abortion is definitely the WRONG way to help a girl who is too young to be a mother.  So I guess that makes me a social Moderate.  Please note that this does not have any bearing on my moral beliefs, which are Conservative.  I believe wholeheartedly that abortion and the homosexual lifestyle are wrong, but I am quite positive that legislation alone will not fix these problems, so I am afraid I'm a bit distanced from the Republican Party in terms of my social views. 

Though I can't say for sure what I believe politically right now, I'm wondering if I'm a political Libertarian (please note that there is a sharp distinction between political libertarianism and moral or social libertarianism).  I do not believe that so-called "victimless crimes" are harmless, but I may in fact believe that victimless crimes cannot be legislated against.  I'm not sure yet.  I know that I do believe that the government should be much smaller than it is, with much lower taxes.  I do not believe that government officials should be paid for what they do, and I believe that the government exists solely for the purpose of ensuring that everyones' individual rights are protected. 

Now I have briefly described for you my religious, moral, social and political views, and not one of them could be described as Liberal.  Believe it or not, Hillary Clinton is in no danger of receiving my vote in 2008.  My focus has perhaps changed in some areas since I blogged at Strangely Normal, but my allegiance has not.  But to quote Derek Webb:

"My first allegiance is not to a flag, a country or a man... And my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood... It's to a King and a Kingdom."

That is where my heart lies.  That is whom I serve and seek to please, and if I occasionally have to break ranks with Republicans in order to serve and please God, then so be it.  For I'd far rather please God than be accepted by men, even if they are Conservative.

October 19, 2006

The Revolution Has Begun...

We knew it was only a matter of time...

The stingrays are taking over.

October 18, 2006

Oh No... Libertarianism! Run!

In light of my most recent post, I feel that I should open up a broader topic for discussion.  In that post, I spoke of homosexual marriage, civil unions, and the like, and wondered just what the Christian reaction should be to such things.  Do we have a duty to make sure everyone conforms to the Christian view of marriage, or do we not have that authority? 

But I'd like to ask a broader question:  To what extent should Christians legislate Christian morality?  I ask this because I'm quite confused by the question of just how much we can expect non-Christians to act like Christians.  If we try to ban any type of sin, will it do anyone any good?  How would it affect the non-Christians' views of Christianity and the Church? 

I ask this because it seems to me that we as Christians should be most concerned with the spiritual state of those around us, and since the actions of any given sinner will not change his spiritual state, it's hard to say that laws restricting sin actually further "the Good" (if we view good as being the salvation of non-believers).  On the flip side, most actions that are illegal are sins of some sort, and I don't really think I'd appreciate the legalization of murder, theft, rape, and other such crimes.  So where does the truth lie?

Perhaps the government and its laws exist to protect the right to life of all citizens.  Undoubtedly, it exists to ensure that we do not harm one another.  But can this be all?  Perhaps the government also exists to protect our property from theft and vandalism.  Perhaps it also exists to ensure that we all may worship as we see fit.  So then, would it be fair to say that the government exists (or should exist) as a referee, protecting the individual's autonomy, or his right to do as he pleases, provided that he does not infringe on the rights of another individual? 

I dunno.  But if this is the case, then we would lose the right to impress Christian morality upon non-Christians, in the same way that Muslims may not force our women to wear yards of cloth.  Would this rather libertarian view of government be proper?  It's too soon for me to say, but it seems at present that it would be, since as I've said before, Christians should be less concerned with what non-believers do, and more concerned with their spiritual state.

So to clarify what I am asking:  Would a more libertarian view of government be more conducive to bringing non-Christians to salvation than a view of government in which we attempt to legislate morality beyond the simple protection of an individuals autonomy?

Please, by all means, let me know what you think.  I'm certain I haven't thought through every aspect of this issue, so I need input to let me know what I'm missing. 

October 16, 2006

Marriage? Sin? Non-Christians? Legislation? What a Jumbled Mess...

As many of my beloved readers probably know, I used to blog about politics and current events.  Doing so was great fun for me, and for the two-and-a-quarter years that I wrote about such things, I placed myself solidly in the Conservative/Republican camp.  Good times, eh?

Well, upon beating that particular dead horse to a pulp, I started to grow a bit disgusted with politics and current events (and perhaps my inability to affect them), and began to get outraged by other subjects.  Thus theology and apologetics became my poison, and while I didn't write much about them, I did think about them a great deal.  In fact, I still do, though I'm afraid that I haven't yet figured out a great deal about them.  But I digress...

As I began to spend less time typing out Republican sound bites and more time thinking about Christianity, I started to wonder exactly how it fits into our culture and politics.  Of course, my views on the subject are only just beginning to form, so I thought I'd pose a couple of questions to get some input from others whose opinions I value.  Hence my (thus far question-less) post.

Earlier today, I read a Yahoo! News article about research that claims there are more unmarried households in America than traditionally married households.  Rather surprising, I thought; but only briefly.  Why, really, would any Christian be surprised when non-Christians neglect to take part in certain ceremonies that are often associated with Christianity?  Don't answer that one, it's a rhetorical question.

The fact that Biblically, marriage was the act of consummating a relationship rather than having a clergyman say "I pronounce you man and wife" notwithstanding, what right have we to impose the Christian (and I use that term loosely) ceremony of marriage on non-Christians?  That's the question I need you to answer.  Can we really expect those who don't recognize our God to accept ceremonies (correctly or incorrectly) associated with Him?  I'm not sure I believe so. 

So then, what should the Christian attitude toward gay marriage be?  If the ceremony of marriage is at best a requirement in Christianity, and at worst completely unnecessary in God's eyes, then what should become of two men who want to be recognized as a couple by the state?  At this point, I'm inclined to agree with C. S. Lewis, who wrote in Mere Christianity that there should be two types of marriages;  one for Christians, administered and recognized by the church, and one for non-Christians, administered and recognized by the State.  Of course, it is also my opinion that marriage in God's eyes has nothing to do with ceremonies performed by man. 

By now, anyone who has read my blogs for any length of time has begun to worry that I have been kidnapped, or that my blog has been hacked by some resentful Leftist who is fed up with my old rants.  The "Neo" that they know and love or love to hate would never advocate the concept of civil unions in addition to traditional marriage.  Indeed, if reading this seems foreign to you, imagine how it feels for me... I myself don't know if that's really where I should stand on the issue, but it currently seems rather logical to stand there, so my mind is left to wage war with the force of habit (which would compel me to take a more "Conservative" stance), to the ends that I have no earthly idea where I stand.  So that's why I ask you now:  In light of the nature of marriage, the irrelevance of ceremonies, and the silliness of expecting a non-Christian to observe Christian ceremonies, is it right to refuse non-Christians the ability to "marry" however they may choose, given that their marriage will not be valid in God's eyes?  For if it is not valid in God's eyes, then it is not valid at all, and if it is not valid at all, then what are we so worried about?

October 11, 2006

Dear Christians

This post was originally an e-mail I wrote to all the Christians I know.  I have since posted it in various places around the internet, and I thought I'd re-post it here as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Hi everybody...

What I'm about to write to you will most likely seem a bit out of character for me. I'm not cutting up in this message, and I'm not inviting people to go paintballing or see a movie; instead, I'm writing a letter that I want all Christians to read. I am not trying to single anyone out with this message, but I hope everyone who reads it will think about it, and consider forwarding it to other Christians if they feel it would be prudent.

I challenge you to read the whole thing. It will be long, but it is full of words that have been on my heart for well over a year. If you are my friend, and truly wish to know my heart, then please read it when you get the time. No need to read it all at once, either, just as it is convenient.

So, to begin...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 1

I view you all as my brothers and sisters in Christ our Lord, who was born of a virgin, crucified, and rose from the dead. We are all members of the Church; though many of us hold different doctrinal beliefs, we are all followers of Christ, and strangers in this world. We are all residents of Heaven, and it is our commission to make the most of our time in this place by spreading the Gospel of Christ, that others may come to Heaven as well.

Jesus Christ is our Savior; He died for your sins and mine, and for the sins of all the world.  So my question to you is why doesn't the world know this? Why is it that we can be confident that Heaven is our destination, while the world is drowning in their sin and misery? Does the church not see the suffering? Have we gone deaf to their cries? Why doesn't the world know and understand the salvation we were all so freely given?

I believe the answer to that  question lies in what the world does know. The world knows that we in the Church sin, and go through pain and suffering just like they do. The world also knows that, unlike them, we try to cover up, ignore, and explain away our sin, and sugarcoat all our suffering ('cause gettin' saved will make everything better, right?). The world knows, then, that we in the church are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites, sitting in pews and singing hymns (or Praise and Worship songs) to make ourselves feel better about the fact that we just can't live up to the standards we face. The world sees us, in all our wretchedness, and laughs when we tell them to conform to the same standards we ourselves fail to meet.

They know what we expect. We expect them to abstain from premarital sex. We expect them to not have abortions. We expect the homosexuals to magically become heterosexual. We expect them to not curse. We expect them to not lie. We expect them to be good, something that we ourselves cannot do apart from Christ (and even when He makes us good, we will not always do good). Are these not the expectations we've communicated to the world? Through legislation and our blissfully ignorant personal actions, we've made it clear to the world that we believe we're better than them because we like to pretend we don't do bad things (and we expect them to do the same).

I write this letter to you all as a sinner, wretched and ignorant. I have sinned simply for the sake of sinning, and I exulted in it. I have lied, cursed, cheated, lusted, and lusted some more. I have been arrogant, spiteful, disrespectful, manipulative, crude, divisive, and everything else that my fallen nature can conceive. I have committed many of the sins that males often fall into, and even so, I rejoice in my undeserved forgiveness. I rejoice because the state and destination of my spirit, in spite of what I've done, is a testimony to God's infinite love and forgiveness.

That is what our sin is supposed to be... a testimony. This doesn't mean we have license to sin with abandon, and claim it's because Christ has forgiven us; rather, it means that we can show the world all that we've done, and they can take comfort in the fact that Christ forgave our sin, and can forgive theirs too. But how will the world know this if we don't own up to our own sin? It is not nearly as harmful to the body of Christ for a member to sin as it is for member to sin, and then deny that sin. That is what causes the world to perceive us as hypocrites, and it is absolutely indefensible.

So I would urge you all to remember your sin, so you will never forget the magnitude of Christ's blessing and its ability to help even the most unlovely of the world. Jesus Christ isn't just the savior of the Christians; as Reese Roper said, He's the "Savior of the prostitutes, drunkards, rapists and the gays."

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 2

There is another issue facing the Church (of which we are all members) today, which I feel I should address. Romans 12:2 says this:

"Be not conformed to the patterns this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God."

The question that must be asked is this: What are the patterns of this world? The short answer would be, quite obviously, "sin," as we are all born into it as a result of Adam's fall. The longer answer would detail exactly what is sin and what isn't, but I'm afraid that discussion is beyond the scope of this e-mail. Suffice it to say, though, that if there is a morally questionable behavior that the world indulges in, it is our "reasonable service" to God to stay away from it.

It saddens me, then, that statistically, the church is no different from the world. People who profess Christ have the same worldview as non-Christians; they do the same things, listen to the same music, use the same language, think about the same things, and believe the same lies that the world does, and they don't give it a second thought. Now I ask you, is this being "transformed by the renewing of our minds," or is it "conforming to the patterns of this world?" Go ahead, answer for yourself...

Now, you may point to Part 1 of my message, if you are hoping to maintain some pattern of the world to which you've grown particularly attached, and say "But Jacob, you're contradicting yourself! You just said that we should be proud of our sin so that it will be a testimony for non-believers!" Of course, that is not true. To essentially repeat what I said earlier, we are to use our sin as proof of the infinite nature of God's forgiveness; however, this does not mean we are to seek further sin. That's just plain ungrateful.

There is another group of Christians who might also attack my message, saying "Jacob, you Pharisee! By emphasizing our need to do good works, you are becoming legalistic, and attempting to impress your legalism on us!" To this, I would simply reply that James told us that "Faith without works is dead." I would say, then, that if someone professes Christ, but continually conforms to the patterns of this world without trying to glorify God, the quality of their faith is dreadfully low. I can't make a judgment about their salvation-- that is God's work, not mine-- but I am not ashamed to say that they are doing a very poor job as a Christian. That's not legalism, that's common sense.

Now, in addition to the fact that God commands it, we have another reason to avoid conforming to the patterns of this world (which I'm sure God was thinking of when He inspired Paul to write Romans 12:2). That reason is this: The world is watching everything we do. It is said that "actions speak louder than words," and it is true. The world knows this (smart people, they are), and they are watching us; they hear us profess Christ, and they watch to see if our actions bear the fruit of our faith. Again I say, faith without works is dead, as James 2:17 tells us, and if our own faith doesn't incite us to act upon it, then why would the world want that faith?

So are we acting on our faith, or suppressing it? Is it bearing fruit in our lives, or is it sitting there idly while we indulge our flesh with the same things the world uses to fill the holes in their own naturally depraved lives? I believe each and every one of us should take it upon ourselves to examine our actions and see if what we do bears the fruit of our faith, or our flesh. What we do reflects what is inside of us, so we should ask ourselves hard questions.

Do our words reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does the music we listen to reflect our faith or our flesh?

Does our attitude reflect our faith or our flesh?

If we are to lead the world to Christ, as is our commission, then we must strive to make every aspect of our lives reflect our faith in the One who is inside of us. This means we should put away from ourselves things like strife, envy, lust, and other carnal things, and instead we should take the advice Paul gave the Philippians:

"Whatever is true, whatever is honest, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."
-Philippians 4:8

So these are the things we should focus on. We must focus on and do things that reflect the faith that is inside of us. If we are Christians, and we do not do this, then we are being unbelievably selfish, choosing to gratify our own flesh at the expense of the souls of the world, who will see our actions and thus have their hearts hardened against the Savior we've so poorly represented.

Let us as a Church cease this selfishness, for the sake of the lost.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Part 3

The final topic that has been on my heart to write about is the shallowness of Christians, and the tendency of the Church to unintentionally condemn non-believers. This is a complex issue, and one that is difficult to address simply. That is why I list it after the previous two topics; if the first part of this e-mail was about the attitude we should have about our personal sin, and the second part was about why we shouldn't sin, then this section is about what to do when others sin (as it is our shallowness of thought and communication that causes others to feel condemned).

Just as non-Christians are watching everything we do, they are also listening to everything we say, and in our zeal to "stamp out sin," some of us (myself included) have come across as condemning. We become so wrapped up in our "pro-life, pro-family" message, trying to sway those who are on the fence, that we forget how we come across to those who have had abortions, or who struggle with homosexuality. Essentially, we fall victim to shallow thought, assuming people who struggle with particular issues are going to receive our words the same way anyone else would, and this insensitivity alienates them. Then, when the "pro-life, pro-family" message becomes our vernacular, and we begin to speak about it without thinking about it, we appear even more shallow.

I'm afraid I haven't been very clear thus far, so allow me to use an example. Imagine a person who is a Christian, and thus believes the Bible when it says homosexual activity is a sin. He is, of course, correct to believe this, but he (like most people) sometimes forgets to be specific. One instance of this would be when he refers to "homosexuality" as a sin; he may well be correct, if he is using "homosexuality" to refer to homosexual activity, but he neglects to take into account the fact that homosexuals by and large define "homosexuality" as "the attraction of one person to his or her same gender." So, through shallow thinking, our Christian friend has alienated any homosexual who heard him say "homosexuality is a sin." Though the Christian was denouncing homosexual activity, the homosexual believes he is saying that the attraction which he has no control over is in itself a sin.

This scenario goes even further too. Imagine a Christian who openly says "I don't like gay people." Is this the right thing to say? Again, imagine what would happen if a homosexual heard someone who claims to represent Christ say "I don't like gay people." It would certainly alienate him. Therefore, we must refrain from speaking like that, no matter whose presence we are in. We are all sinners, and the fact that someone struggles with a particular sin is no reason to dislike them, since we all have sins that we struggle with. That is the nature of Man.

Now, I used the example of homosexuality, but Christians addressing many issues, such as abortion, euthanasia, Islam (and other religions), alcoholism and drug addictions have all succumbed to shallow thinking and poor communication with non-believers. This is why the pro-abortion crowd, pro-euthanasia crowd, pro-homosexual marriage crowd, and all the other "crowds" have become so radically anti-Christian. They feel attacked because we are too lazy to think all the way through the issue and communicate with them in ways they understand, so they retaliate with shallow thought and incendiary words of their own. We may not like the way these people treat us, but we've brought it upon ourselves.

The solution, obviously, is for us to be careful of how the world receives our talk of sin. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't address sin, because without understanding sin, the world cannot understand salvation from sin, but it does mean that we should speak in terms they can understand, rather than our wonderful buzzwords and religious-speak that we use to let other Christians know we're "on fire." Perhaps instead of denouncing homosexuality, we should denounce homosexual activity. Perhaps instead of preaching so vehemently against abortion, we should preach more in favor of adoption. Perhaps instead of preaching against euthanasia, we should learn to take care of those in need. Perhaps we should temper all of our communications with compassion, as Christ did.

So we must learn to think through the tough issues, and be careful of our communication. As I said, the world is watching what we do and listening to what we say, and the way we react to hot-button issues like homosexuality and abortion will influence the way much of the world views the whole of Christianity, and Christ with it. Is our intellectual laziness worth the souls of people just like us? Is it worth it to condemn millions to Hell, just because we didn't feel like taking the time to communicate Christ's message properly? Of course not. We must be willing to think hard, and communicate well, because the souls of people just like us can be won or lost based on how we react to the sin in their lives.

-----------------------------------------------------------

If you've read all the way through this e-mail, I'd like to thank you. As I said in the beginning, this stuff has been on my heart for a long time, and I had to write it out and send it to you. It wasn't only meant for my friends though; this e-mail is written essentially to every Christian, though not every Christian will read it. So, now that you've read it, I ask that you do two things: First, if you find that it was profitable to read, I ask that you would forward it to other Christians you know, that they could read it too; and second, if you care to, e-mail me your thoughts on the issues I attempted to address. You don't have to do this, of course; I'd just like to know who stands with me, and who disagrees.

I don't know if this e-mail will do anyone any good. I only wrote it because I feel that God placed it on my heart. I have no illusions; as I said in Part 1, I sin just like everyone else, and I don't claim to always hold to the principles I advocate. I only believe in them, and try to uphold them to the best of my ability; the rest is up to God.

So again, thank you for reading this e-mail, and may God bless you all as you walk the path He has ordained for you.


In Christ,
Jacob Thrasher
sixohsixoh2004@yahoo.com

October 07, 2006

The 11th Commandment: Thou Shalt Be Relevant

I've been thinking lately.  About things.  You know, nothing really important, just stuff like Relevance in the church and how it affects people, Christian and non-Christian.  Yes, I know I could have been thinking about more important things, like the impending release of Jeremy Camp's doomsday machine new album, or the death of Anna Nicole Smith's son, but unfortunately, my mind just isn't strong enough to spend its energy contemplating such heavy topics. 

So I started thinking about Relevance, and asking myself some rather inane questions.  Questions like:

"Do more people really come to Christ as a result of our naming sermons after reality TV shows?"

and

"How many Southerners can be converted in one day by comparing Christianity to a NASCAR race?" (Because you know, Jesus Christ is our driver, and the angels are his pit crew, and we'd never be able to go this fast without God)

So... seriously, what good is this sort of Relevance doing us?  Are we doing any good by seeking to make God's Word "accessible," as though the last fifty years have rendered the message of the Bible obsolete after thousands of years of it being relevant on its own?  Is Relevance really worth all the effort we put into it?

My answer is... well, no.  At least, that sort of Relevance isn't worth it.  But let's talk a bit about what Relevance really is.

When we speak of making something "relevant," we usually mean we are making it understandable and applicable to some user or recipient.  Therefore, when we speak of Relevance in the church, we are seeking to do one of two things:  We are either trying to make the church relevant to people's lives, or we are trying to make the church's message relevant to people's lives.  One of these goals is quite alright, and even admirable, but the other is nothing short of destructive.  Can you tell which is which?

The church itself is the body of Christ, and it has always been our job to be relevant.  That is why Jesus said we are "salt" and "light"; we exist to be applied to the lives of others, that they might come to know of the salvation that has been freely offered to them.  We in the Church are commanded to love our neighbors as ourselves, and if we do that, we will always be relevant. 

On the other hand, making the church's message more relevant to people's lives is nowhere in a Christian's job description.  We have no obligation (and furthermore, no authority) to tamper with God's message; yes, it may be 2006, but the Kingdom of God is still like a mustard seed.  There is no need to include an uninspired sports analogy (complete with a powerpoint picture of Muhammad Ali) in the message to keep the masses interested in what you have to say.

But what, specifically, is wrong with illustration-laden sermons about the Ten Commandments and the rules of Baseball?  I would suggest that the problem lies in the fact that adding something extra to the message implies that the Word of God itself is insufficient.  Would any of us say that the revelation of man's depravity through sin and the revelation of his salvation through Christ is less relevant today than it was two thousand years go?  Perhaps technology has progressed a great deal since then, but man's spiritual state has stayed the same, as has his perception of it.  The simple fact that we have sports, movies and television in this day and age doesn't mean that our understanding of all things spiritual is based out of Monday Night Football and Survivor.

Of course, I'm very much in favor of the use of metaphors and illustrations to help people understand the Gospel or difficult-to-grasp theological concepts.  It seems to me, though, that there is a difference between the use of analogies to help people understand a point, and the hijacking of some part of popular culture to keep people's attention.  As limited as our minds are, we often need the aid of some example or illustration to help us understand something that is foreign to us, and for such purposes, an illustration is fine.  However, when the purpose of an illustration is simply to cater to whatever people happen to be interested in at the moment in hopes that it will hold their attention, it detracts from the timeless quality of the message of depravity, sin, grace and salvation. 

We must not pretend that pop culture references can do the Gospel justice.  Pop culture is merely a set of passing trends, as shallow as it is pervasive, and there is not a person on the face of the earth who can only understand a lesson if it is taught in terms of that culture.  If there were, then surely the curriculum in public schools would have been altered beyond recognition by now to accommodate those individuals.  But the simple fact is that people are more capable of learning and understanding the Gospel than the Church wants to give them credit for.  They need not be enticed by some cheesy ripoff of a reality television show in order to become interested in the condition or eternal destination of their spirit.

And now, someone objects...

"Oh, but Jacob, surely you're mistaken... We should be using every means we have to reach the world with the Gospel, or to teach Christians how to live!  If reality TV is what gets people's attention, we should use it!  We should be all things to all men, you know.." 

Right.  The problem is that people, as inconveniently smart as they are, can tell when they're being baited.  To be all things to all men is to understand the culture, and to let the message we bring influence the way we live our lives, not to let the culture influence our message.  It is the difference between Paul saying on Mars' Hill "It is this unknown God I proclaim to you," and "I proclaim to you a God that is pretty much like your gods, only cooler!"

This is the danger of Relevance, that we seek to make God understood in terms of something that is superficial and passing --an impossible feat-- rather than causing the superficial to be understood in terms of a God who never changes and a grace that runs deeper than we could ever understand.  Yes, it's fine to use examples, analogies and illustrations to further our understanding of Scripture, but when the use of such illustrations is favored over the simple teaching of God's Word, something is out of balance.  No matter how we teach it, we can't improve God's Word; nothing will ever be as relevant to humanity, as easy to understand or as attention-grabbing as the pure Message that provides us with a way to escape the eternal damnation that we inarguably deserve.

My Photo

Favorite Podcasts

My Friends

Useful Links

  • Webmonkey: HTML Cheatsheet
    Here you'll find out how to use some basic HTML tags to spice up your text or add links to comments.
  • Technorati
    It's only the coolest way to see who's linking to whom...
  • PrProgramsStudios | Home
    The home of ViewpointKiller.
  • MiniAIM
    Go here to download MiniAIM... it's AIM made much less stupid. Oh, and it's an executable file, which means you do almost no downloading.
Powered by TypePad