Do you think that fundamentalists blur the gospel and come near to replacing it with moralism?

Ben at Paleoevangelical thinks so, and notes that there is a parallel in the Manhattan Declaration.

Now what’s next.  I should write about my new path.  But not yet.  I want to write about something else.  I want to go more in depth of how much I lived in a fantasy.  I’m not sure you understand the gravity of me living in a fantasy world.

I remember when ever I had any free time or had time to just day dream my thoughts would go straight to fantasizing.  It was my hobby.  I could write books and books about what I day dreamed.  In years how much have I fantasized in my life?  I would have to say about five years of my life.  That’s if you put every minute that I day dream side by side.  I would have spent probably more than five years.  But I’m giving you an assumption of how much I would day dream.

I remember during recess time I didn’t play with the kids I would go off on my own and day dream.  I would even draw obscene drawings about a man and a women having sex.  But with my barbie dolls I would have two barbies having sex with one another.  The fantasies ran deep within.

I would fall asleep fantasizing and wake up and add to the imagination.  It was if I was living in a never ending day dream and my world was what I had to put up with.  I lived in an constant bubble.  Not letting reality hit me and not allowing myself to get hurt.  It was glass menagerie.  My illusion that I was living some what of a reality but stayed in my dreams when anything wrong was going on.  Never taking responsibility because I didn’t have to.  Especially since I had an older sister and two younger that took up my parents time.  I just slipped through the cracks and made it by as well as I could.  I remember when I was bored in church I would fantasize there too.  I didn’t know any better.  It was my reality.

I sometimes wonder if I were to go mad would I slip into one of my fantasies and believe it to be reality?  If I would forget my family and think that all the celebrities that I have made love to were my loved ones.  How much of me was lost in those daydreams?  How much of me was lost to the imagination?

I now live in the real world but I still day dream.  I still regress into myself right before falling asleep.  It helps keep the monsters at bay.  What monsters?  This is were I try to combine my Christianity.

When I was younger I would feel like there was some kind of presence in my room.  I never knew if it was safe or if it was some presence that shouldn’t be around.  I have always had some kind of spiritual experience.  A year hasn’t gone by in my life when I have had some kind of abnormal experience more like supernatural experience happen to me.  Now please understand that I believe that I have been redeemed with the blood of Jesus Christ and I have spoken in tongues.

Well that was then.  I don’t know about now…

Anyway I have been baptized, I have danced in the spirit, I had a demon casted out of me, and I have spoken in tongues.  I have also given someone a tiny prophesy.  I know you might think she is crazy.  That there is no way that these things could happen to someone but please believe that I am not crazy and I have had these things happen to me.  They are real.  If you do not believe that their are demons, angels, or that you have been redeemed by the son of God then stop reading altogether.  Stop reading because you might not understand or care for the rest of this post.

There are things I cannot not explain that have happened.  That I wish I could scientifically explain and give proof but alas I have none of it.  All of my life I’ve had people say “If you just let go He can do great things in your life!”  If I could go back to them and say “I have let go not in the way you might have wanted it but what now?  What happens to this lost child of His?  I am even lost?  Or was this the plan all along?”  I know that Jesus loves us no matter what.  But I have had a huge fight with myself wondering if He does love the ones that have decided to become homosexual.  Sure sex can be perverted, if you pervert it.  But what if two women or two men have sex in love.  Two people of the same sex love each other and are faithful, have been with each other for years with no other partner… Does not God consider a partnership between two straight people that have had sex with only one another to be husband and wife?  So would they not be a married couple?

For Christians I’m sorry if this may seem blasphemous but do not preach to me what the doctrine says.  Come to me with an open heart and try to explain to me what you think… Not what you know or what it says in black and white.  Come to me with open arms and minds and answer me that.  Answer me what does God do with those who are born one way but in their heart they know its not.  But yet myself who has ran and ran from being a lesbian has had all these spiritual experiences.  Experiences where I should have been frightened but I have ran into God’s arms and have been covered.

I don’t know what else to say.  I don’t know where else to go with this.  This has been one heavy post but it was needed to be said.  I will elaborate more on another one.  But for now I will leave you with that.  Take it in.  If its too much, than I’m sorry but this is me.  I will not apologize for it anymore.  Take it or leave it…

XOXO

~RoMa

I would venture to say that Missions have more to hope from a narrow creed which remains great, than from a wide humanism that runs thin. We cannot rest Missions on a religion of Fatherhood alone. The recent gospel of mere fatherhood has been concurrent with a decay of missionary zeal. Where that phase of Christianity shows itself it is Unitarianism, which has no Missions because it has no Gospel. . . . One source of the decay in missionary interest is the decay in theological perception and conviction. Vagueness always lowers the temperature.

P. T. Forsyth, Missions in State and Church

Here’s some places a mouse click or two took me this week:

• I really hesitate to post another link to Pete Wilson because every time I do, he writes a personal note of thanks, and he’s a busy guy.  But I couldn’t ignore this one.   Pete had the thrill of baptizing his son Jett last week, and wrote him a note on the blog.    Here’s the part I don’t want you to miss:  “God has an amazing adventure planned for you and I want to encourage you to trust Him at every turn. Over and over again you’ll face situations where you’ll be tempted to give into fear but I pray you’ll choose faith. You’ll be temped to control but remember freedom comes in letting go. You’ll be drawn toward comfort but I pray you’ll choose sacrifice. You will feel all alone but remember God promises that He will never leave you nor forsake you.” Read it all here.
• This video has been up for a year now, but if you missed the Protestant Reformation and want to catch up, this rap video, 95 Theses, should fill you in.   (Click on more info below the advert to see the full lyrics.)  Also available at this homepage.
• Sadly, Philip Yancey marks his final regular column with Christianity Today this week with a look at the Evangelical movement.   “Perhaps we should present an alternative to the prevailing culture rather than simply adopt it. What would a church look like that created space for quietness, that bucked the celebrity trend and unplugged from surrounding media, that actively resisted consumerist culture? What would worship look like if it were directed more toward God than toward our entertainment preferences?”
  
• Jim Henderson, of Jim and Caspar Go To Church fame, has an excellent article on his site, “What The Black Church Has That The White Church Needs.”   He writes, “They’ve never had power or influence over the majority culture; They’ve always had to do more with less;  They have experience with being ignored; They’ve developed practical gospel that brings heaven to humans (as well as humans to heaven); They produced the most significant Christian leader of the 20th Century Martin Luther King Jr… ” You might find it hard to see the first few of those as being things they have.   Read and comment at Off The Map.
• A long time acquaintance of ours, Brian McAuley, has written a book on an encouragement celebration that parents can do with their children.   The Family Gold Plate meal is similar to other red plate rituals some families have, but adds a lot of extra details.   It’s sold as a book only, or with the gold plate itself.    I don’t endorse a lot of commercial ventures on this blog, but am making an exception for this one.   To learn more, click here.   (It’s also linked in this blog’s sidebar from now to year-end.)
  
• USAToday’s religion page notes the proliferation of student atheist groups on college campuses in this article. “At Iowa State, most of the club’s roughly 30 members are “former” somethings, mostly Christians. Many stress that their lives are guided not by anti-religiousness, but belief in science, logic and reason.”
• In a 7-minute video, author Stephen K. Scott, author of The Greatest Words Ever Spoken, discusses The Greatest Man Who Ever Lived.   Scott went from failing in nine jobs to starting over a dozen multi-million dollar companies.   Read the book promotional vid here.
• Time Magazine discusses the “helicopter parent” syndrome in a 4-page online article titled “The Growing Backlash Against Over-parenting.”   Strongly recommended for parents, grandparents, daycare workers, educators, etc.   Click here to read.
• This one’s a bit dangerous, since the website WTFDIB stands for ‘What the Flippity-Flop Do I Believe?’  I know that when most of you see WTF in an acronymn, that’s not the first thing that comes to mind.   That may explain the rather slow traffic on this doctrinal discussion site.  Maybe you can spark a few of the discussions.

HT re. Time Magazine article goes to Zach Neilsen at Take Your Vitamin Z

They’re golfing.  On the Links.   Get it?   Okay, I’ll just put the cat up again next week like we usually do.

To be clear, I am not a Roman Catholic.  Nevertheless, I am not shy about drawing from the deep well of Catholic teaching prohibiting abortion or the legalization thereof. 

I recently received word of a ghastly organization, “Catholics For Choice“.  It should be noted that this is not a Catholic organization, and in fact, claims to represent “the [alleged] great majority of the faithful in the Catholic church who disagrees with the dictates of the Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood.”  Seems sort of silly to call such an entity a Catholic organization at all, since it opposes a rather major mission of the Church, not to mention its authority, which is sort of a big deal in the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Bishops have, of course, addressed this renegade organization: “As the Catholic Bishops of the United States have stated for many years, the use of the name Catholic as a platform for promoting the taking of innocent human life and ridiculing the Church is offensive not only to Catholics, but to all who expect honesty and forthrightness in public discourse.”  The Bishops have also clarified that the Catholic Church’s position against abortion has never changed, and Catholic ministers have offered no shortage of rebuttals to the likes of pro-choice Catholic politicians Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Biden, and Kathleen Sebelius.

Someone from a Catholic background recently told me that the reason the Church prohibits abortion is so that they can baptize infants to remove the stain of original sin, and that the Church does not consider unborn infants “innocent”.  These statements are false.  Just so we’re absolutely clear, I’m going to quote verbatim the Church’s teachings on abortion straight out of the Catechism, which appears in its discussion of the Fifth Commandment (“You Shall Not Kill”). 

2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”⁵⁶ . . . .

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.⁷¹

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.⁷²

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.⁷³

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.⁷⁴

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.⁷⁵

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”⁷⁶ “by the very commission of the offense,”⁷⁷ and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.⁷⁸ The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”⁷⁹

“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”⁸⁰

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”⁸¹

2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”⁸²

“It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”⁸³

“Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”⁸⁴ which are unique and unrepeatable.

[Italics in original, underline added.]

It could not be more clear that the Catholic Church takes the obvious and common-sense position that unborn human beings are “innocent”.  It affirms that proposition no less than three times.  Likewise, there is no disputing that the Catholic Church deems abortion to be a grave sin, and always has (and that aborted babies do not necessarily go to hell).  The Church explicitly deems the failure to protect unborn lives through penal sanctions to be unjust (not simply as a matter of religious doctrine, but of natural law). 

If anyone claims that the Catholic Church is anything but completely and expressly opposed to abortion and the legalization thereof, there are more than adequate grounds to disabuse that person of that notion.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, A.D. 787

1. You did not cover my religious group with the sort of detail it deserves.

2. You are wrong about my religious group’s teachings. We’re actually right.

Many such messages are also strongly influenced by the fact that the commenter has not listened to all the parts of the particular lecture in question (AFR is dividing them each up into two or three parts, which turns seven lectures into at least fifteen episodes), so they’re not actually getting everything I said in that whole lecture which might be pertinent to their group. Others comments are a permutation of that sampling error, based usually on the fact that the whole series hasn’t been aired yet—I have some rather detailed comments to say in general about all religions vis-à-vis Orthodoxy in both the first and the last lectures of the series. That’s particularly important, since I don’t intend my remarks to be taken outside the overall educational and evangelistic purpose of the talks. But of course I acknowledge that those are hazards of the format, so I just keep responding with “Be sure to listen to the other parts of the lecture” and “Be sure to listen to the first/last lecture.”

In any event, regarding the two primary objections noted above, I find myself in my replies frequently repeating several observations. Again, it’s understandable that people should have these objections, given the format—after all, by submitting them for AFR’s editing and publication, I am removing them from their original intended context and allowing them to be apprehended by a diverse population whose presuppositions and experiences are likely far different from the original.

So here’s what a bit of I’m repeating:

1. This lecture series is an “encyclopedia-level view” of the various groups in question, designed for parish education for people who are already Orthodox Christians. It is not meant in any sense to be a detailed examination of all the various permutations of each religious group covered (well over 100!). There is simply not enough time for that, given the design, and I rather doubt that the people attending the lectures would be interested, for instance, in an in-depth examination of Confessional Lutheranism or the less-hyper-than-hyper-Calvinists.

This was a particular problem in dealing with Roman Catholicism, to which I dedicated an entire lecture. What the Magisterium teaches is not identical to what Catholics are hearing in the pulpit and in confession, nor is it identical to the vast world of Roman Catholic theology which has, it must be admitted, somewhat revolutionized Catholic life over the past century. In many regards, the Magisterium is somewhat “lagging behind” all those trends (and good for them!), some of which are in my opinion worth pursuing (e.g., the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Henri de Lubac), while others are very much not (e.g., Liberation Theology). But who am I, as an Orthodox Christian priest, to try to sift through all that stuff and declare which versions are the “true” Roman Catholicism, over and above the sorts of official statements in the Catechism? Not going there; don’t have the time for it, anyway.

As a result of all this, I deliberately have simplified much of what I say about other faiths. No doubt many adherents would regard it as oversimplification, but I’ll at least say that I tried my best not to do that.

2. These lectures are not evangelistic in their immediate purpose. That is, they were designed for Orthodox Christians to learn about and begin to engage people of other faiths. One of their ultimate purposes, of course, is evangelistic, but only in terms of helping Orthodox people understand other faiths better so that they can enter into conversation with their adherents. The other purpose of these lectures is to educate Orthodox people better in their own faith, by means of comparison and contrast.

3. The series is deliberately non-ecumenical. Its purpose is not to enter into dialogue or debate, which I think is largely pointless on the “official” level but often fruitful on a personal level (see #2). This means that, for instance, when a member of one of the Reformed faiths tells me that his communion really was saying nothing new during the Reformation, just purging innovations accrued by Roman Catholicism, I am not going to agree with him. (If I did, I’d join their church!) The explicit purpose of these lectures is to present an Orthodox Christian view (note the “an,” not “the”) of these various faiths, which necessarily involves the use of critique, since Orthodox Christianity is not identical to any of the faiths being discussed.

Honestly, I would hope that serious members of these faiths would regard their own faith in the same way—if it’s really true, then that means that, where other faiths differ, then they must be false. I’m not sure how one can otherwise have any religious integrity.

In the past, I personally spent a lot of time debating with members of other religions, and I’m done with that now. So when I present a lecture on comparative theology, I deliberately favor Orthodoxy and make no pretense at being unbiased or neutral. I also make no claim to expert status on any of what I’m discussing. No one should be citing me in papers (though I just found out that a high school student at my home parish has done so!), and no one who is seriously interested in exploring any of these subjects should consider my little lecture series the last word on the matter. Go check out the handouts (each of which includes an appendix of sources) for further reading, and go beyond that.

Yesterday, my khourieh asked me if all this email was stressing me out. It’s not. I expected it, though I didn’t expect the volume that I’ve received (which has been manageable). I do find it fascinating, though, that so many of the responses can be sorted into the above two objections. I certainly didn’t expect that.

One of the reasons I talked with AFR about recording and publishing this series is that I think there is precious little being done along these lines. Very few Orthodox writers seem interested in doing work to help parishioners engage the theologies around them. Yet if we do not do this, we both risk losing people to these heterodox groups and we also cut the legs out from under many evangelistic possibilities. So I’ve thrown in my contributions. I hope others do far more detailed and better work than I.

Although I’ve loved using WordPress for the duration of this blog, recently I’ve been working on a custom replacement blog platform that I can host and maintain myself. This probably sounds odd, especially since there are already so many excellent blogging platforms available, but I’ve pushed ahead with it for a couple of reasons I think most developers will understand:

1. Here at wordpress.com, I’d have to pay for certain features I can get for free with a self-hosted solution; I’d rather pay for hosting than pay for, say, custom templating.
2. Although I could run WordPress or Drupal on a self-hosted domain, I still wouldn’t really be in control of the platform; a tailor-made solution will do exactly what I want it to, no more, no less.
3. Most importantly: I blog primarily on my free time, mainly about projects I’m doing to hone skills I don’t typically get to use during my day job. I use Drupal all day at work, so using it for my blog wouldn’t really teach me anything.

The new platform is based on my favorite open source framework, Zend Framework, and makes heavy use of the Doctrine ORM library; I’ve been using Zend Framework for several years now, but Doctrine is new to me (and fantastic, by the way) …so I’m learning some very helpful new skills, and that makes me happy.

If you’d like to take a look at the new blog, it’s actually already live at jazzslider.org; I still haven’t worked out all the kinks, especially as far as IE compatibility is concerned, but I believe it’s a step in the right direction.

Check it out and let me know what you think!

“You are like a building that was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.  Christ Jesus himself is the most important stone in the building and that whole building is joined together in Christ.  He makes it grow and become a holy temple in the Lord.  And in Christ you, too, are being built together with the Jews into a place where God lives through the Spirit.”  ~ Ephesians 2:20-22

Valley of Dry Bones

Daily I read God’s Word and daily I am grieved all the more at what has become of the Church.  Let me propose a question: What has become of the Church Christ built?  I have great joy in knowing that the Church He established is stronger than ever, but it’s not what the natural eye would perceive to be.  Jesus said the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church that He establishes.  He said that upon the confession of who He is would His Church be built (Matt. 16:18).   

So what do I mean by the Church not being perceived with the natural eye?  The Church that Christ has established is not an assembling of a couple of hundred people or the large building you see as you zip by on the street.  It’s not that televangelist channel you faithful watch, nor is it that revival or popular crusade you attend that is the Church Christ established and is building.  No, the Church is much more.  Jesus said He would be the one to build His Church (Matt. 16:18).  The New Testament Church is the spiritually transformed body of believers, body meaning the total sum.  Jesus spent 40 days continuing to give instructions and commands after His resurrection.  His last command was to MAKE DISCIPLES – not just evangelize (Matthew 28:16-30).  

My minor grief comes from the fact that most “churches” today are lopsided in their mission.  Fewer and fewer are devoted to fulfilling the Great Commission.  They spend more time talking about the manifesting gifts of the Holy Spirit, being volunteer-oriented,  seeking prosperity or doing mission trips (short & long term).  But the greater problem is being overlooked.  There are very few who are dedicated to obeying Christ in His Word.  Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:14-16).  It can not all be put on the elders of the churches for the lack of obedience, as the true Word of God is available to all.  There however is a greater standard for those who would desire to lead (James 3:1-12).  Unfortunately, there is a plaguing trend amongst the churches to teach opinions and traditions rather than biblical doctrine – Sound Doctrine. 

As churches seek to increase their numbers with programs and flashy services, they lean more and more to a Seeker-friendly establishment rather than being a part of the Church Jesus is building.  There is a failure to trust the Lord to take care of what He started.  It is as if to say that God can not handle growing what He began.  Do not act shocked at that last saying.  Pastors and church leaders are doing it all over the place, teaching their opinions with smooth words that entice and comfort the flesh of man (1 Thess. 2).  As a result, congregations, by the truck loads, hang on to LONG TRADITIONS, never seeking for themselves biblical SOUND DOCTRINE (Matthew 6:19-21).  If you listen to people talk about what they do know of the Scriptures, you hear of beliefs long held because they were taught by their pastors, youth leaders, and their parents, but there rarely is ever any SOUND DOCTRINE involved.  Do you know why you believe what you believe?  Do you see yourself as God sees you or are you still claiming to be a part of the world by your words and actions? 

Traditions can be a valuable part of our lives.  They do have their place.  But they are only “lasting” to God when they are rooted and controlled by SOUND DOCTRINE.  Is what you believe in God’s written Word?  Are your traditions from a biblical heritage or are you on auto-pilot?  When will we receive all that comes in the free gift giving by Jesus’ sacrifice and resurrection?  When will we let go of our family traditions and take the opportunity to go to our heavenly Father for guidance in His traditions.  This day choose who you will serve – The way of LONG-HELD TRADTIONS or God’s SOUND DOCTRINE.  

Speak in faith, walk in faith, know the Word of God and be transformed in your life by the renewing of your mind – that only comes from knowing Jesus, God the Son, personally – not from afar with man-made traditions.  Be blessed this thanksgiving and set your mind on things above.  Today, if you are in Christ, you are a new creature…the old has gone away, the new has come.

In The Shack, William P. Young addresses his protagonist’s psychological daddy issue by having God, the Father (all three persons of the Trinity are individually represented) appear as a big black woman named Papa.  God did this to help Mac (the protagonist) get past his obstacle, his bad relationship with his earthly father, so that Mac could grow in his relationship with God, his Heavenly Father.  On the surface this may sound like a wonderful act of kindness.  Sadly, it is contrary to Scripture, God’s description of himself, and thereby harmful to the countless Christians who have read The Shack and have hence ascribed to its “Christian” view. Included below is a post I wrote up back in July concerning The Shack, as well as a couple other links that you may find helpful in understanding the dangers of The Shack and the problem with Young’s god.

Issues With ‘The Shack’

Does ‘Relationship’ Get in the Way?

William Young, Author of The Shack, Outright Denies the Penal Substitutionary Atonement

“Grasping the external propulsion of God’s grace is crucial to our understanding of mission. It means that mission is not a duty (something we ’should do’) but a natural overflow of the gospel’s work inside us. If you aren’t motivated to love, serve, and speak the gospel to people, the answer isn’t to ‘just do it.’ The answer is to examine your heart, repent of sin, and discern where your unbelief is short-circuiting the natural outward movement of the gospel. As the gospel renews your heart, it will also renew your desire to move out in faith into the relationships and opportunities God places in your path.

To put it simply, the grace of God is always going somewhere—moving forward, extending his kingdom, propelling his people toward love and service to others. As we learn to live in light of the gospel, mission should be the natural overflow. God’s grace brings renewal internally (in us) so that it might bring renewal externally (through us).”

- Bob Thune and Will Walker, The Gospel-Centered Life (World Harvest Mission, 2009), 46.

via Of First Importance

This past weekend at Chippewa Correctional-West, I encountered a prisoner with hope.  Now, as the line from The Shawshank Redemption says, “Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”  The right hope, though, is the key.  That hope must also have a foundation.  This man’s hope, I believe, is not based on a firm foundation and is hope that I have encountered far too often.

One of the very first prisoners I encountered back in 1997 was a man who was convinced he would be released “shortly” because of this passage of Scripture:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; (Is. 61:1, ESV)

How had he come to that conclusion?  He had heard more than one TV preacher proclaim that – both on television and in written materials that had been sent to him.  Is that what that passage is about?  Of course not.  But encouraging prisoners to think it sure does keeps the financial support coming in, right?  Yes, there is sarcasm attached to that comment, but there’s also truth there as well.  This prisoner had a trip back to the county where he was convicted upcoming where he was convinced his case would be thrown out and he would be home within a year.  It’s now almost 13 years later.  This man is still in prison.

The prisoner from this past weekend repeated a “prophecy” that I have heard from numerous other prisoners over the years.  I’ve done a search and have been unable to verify whether or not it was actually said (or published), so I will withhold the TV preacher to whom it is attributed.  The prophecy goes something like this:

The Lord will be doing a mighty work in the prisons of Michigan and He will do that by releasing almost all of the prisoners in Michigan!

I preface my comments by saying that even with all the time I’ve spent serving in prisons, I still do not have a clue what it is like to be incarcerated and I would be foolish in saying to a prisoner, “I understand.”  I don’t.  I haven’t been there.  I can’t fathom the senses of despair, loss, hopelessness, fear and so on that a prisoner endures.  The harm caused to his family.  The financial/material loss.

Having said that, there is so much false hope offered to prisoners and far too often, that “hope” is offered by Christians.  It is not universal – the most passionately held desire by prisoners, but it’s pretty doggone close – the single thing most desired by prisoners is “to go home.”  They just want to come back and live on the other side of the fence.  Far too often I’ve seen Christians try, with all good intentions, to encourage prisoners by telling them they “know” that God will show mercy and let them go early.  In some cases, it also seems to be a coping mechanism for those serving long sentences.  I know men serving multiple life sentences who are truly convinced they will be going home soon.  I have a friend I’ve known for a while who, if the state keeps him as long his sentence allows, will not be released until he is 110 years old.  His earliest release date is when he is in his mid 60’s.  He in convinced that he is going to be released and father the son he never had.  Possible?  Sure.  A definite?  No.

Those, such as the man I encountered this past weekend who is the latest to place his trust in this so-called “prophecy” (if such was ever even uttered/published – I’m still not convinced) are placing their hope in the wrong place.  Yes, I know some will say, “You don’t understand.”  They’re right.  I don’t understand the prison experience.  But I do understand the Scriptures.  God may choose to free the prisoners.  He has also ordained the state as a means of maintaining order in this fallen creation.  Seeing the peace that prisoners have who have placed their hope in the right place – prisoners who are doing life sentences – is a wonderful thing.

The old song says, “Our hope is built on nothing less than Jesus blood and righteousness.”  There’s a lesson for all of us – where is our hope?

]]> http://chumptrap.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/wanna-start-your-own-cult/ Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:17:19 +0000 nottachump http://chumptrap.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/wanna-start-your-own-cult/

It’s so easy it’s scary!

Watch this video for a dark and twisted (and largely accurate) take on what I’m currently researching for upcoming posts…

I was walking down the old dirt paths and slowly navigating my way through the landmine of pinecones and taking in each snapshot of scenery that dripped with raw beauty. I was taken in by all the things around me. The sweet harmonious melodies of the birds singing in choired unison and the romantic whispered chirpings of the cicadas’ calling me deeper into the forest, deeper into the night. It is this call that leads me to wonder if there is more to life than a book? Is all that life is, summed up in the pages of 66 authors?

I wouldn’t be able to share with you my experience in a captivating forest if all I did was read about the forest. I might be able to give you glimpses and a sort of scientific approach to what it might feel like if I were in a forest, but the experience is vastly different than the science. One is factual, the other is life-altering. This isn’t to say that facts don’t have the ability to change our lives, but studies have shown that one out of one person are always changed by their experiences, whether good or bad. I could have explained to you a map of the forest, but it wouldn’t have given you the contours, colors and outlines that you can only experience in person.

You can sit down and read a really good book. You might even feel like you are one of the characters drifting through each of the pages, but there is nothing like living your own story. If we replace the word living with writing, then maybe what we might be able to say is that all of us are still writing not just our story, but God’s story as well. We get to write with Him. In The Bible: The Biography by Karen Armstrong, she asserts that before the Old Testament was canonized that the Jews had this belief that they were responsible to reinterpret scripture as much as possible so that it was relevant and spoke to the current structures of society. In fact, one place, she even says that they had thrown out certain parts of scripture because it wasn’t relevant to the time. For most, this is a different view to what we have been taught(but just because it’s different doesn’t mean its not true). And if it is true, then what are the ripples in the pond? I think for those who believe the Bible holds all the answers then it seems like an attack rather than an enquiry, because it seems a bit reductionistic to try and make the Bible anything other than the Word of God. Yet, this is isn’t the hope of postmoderns or those with questions. It is to experience God as those in scripture did. So rather than see the bible as trail map to be studied, it is more like an invitation between friends to come and walk with God and discover the raw unedited beauty of the journey. To come and discover God. To “taste and see that he is good”. Both words for taste and see in the Hebrew when translated mean “to experience”. God is inviting us all not to simply read the pages, but live the pages. Write the pages. And Be the pages.

Postmodernism is running through the halls of our churches and fortune 500 companies and classrooms, but is postmodernism the enemy? Can’t postmodernism be a good thing too? It can help us revisit things and begin asking hard questions that maybe aren’t that comfortable but might be necessary to pursue together to find the answers to. Postmodernism is simply asking the question “Is there more to life than this? Is there more to the Bible than this? Is there more to truth than this?” The ancient Jewish followers of YHWH believed it was imperative to ask questions. To be Jew meant you had questions. To be a person who lived and breathed meant you were a person who was driven to seek answers to those questions, no matter how long the journey took. No matter where those questions took you, it was your responsibility as a Jew to make sure you found the answer.

One of the hallmarks of good COIN is that it is not focused solely on military factors.  Indeed, politics and development are meant to take centre stage, with support from the military.  According to those in the know, like David Kilcullen, COIN should resemble ‘armed social work’. 

This concept is embedded in current US doctrine.  FM 3-24 clearly states

The integration of civilian and military efforts is crucial to successful COIN operations. All efforts focus on supporting the local populace and HN government. Political, social, and economic programs are usually more valuable than conventional military operations in addressing the root causes of conflict and undermining an insurgency.

 

For it’s part NATO speaks of a Comprehensive Approach, which

is a structured and effective coordination at the local, national and institutional level, where each organisation’s efforts are complemented and mutually reinforced.  This should be with a view to achieving common, or at least similar, goals.

Sounds groovy.  How is it working in practice?

Frankly, not so well.  Take, for example, a single case of a single country trying to implement its version of the comprehensive approach.  This should allow us to see how things can be coordinated, without the difficulties of multiple actors (eg. how an Italian army unit works together with the Swedish Development Agency), let alone the chestnut of the ‘non-national’ NGOs. 

Canada has been active in Afghanistan since 2002.  It created a 3D Strategy to deal with the complex reality there: it would harness Diplomacy, Development, and Defence to provide a coordinated effort at countering the insurgency and helping to build a stronger state.

But look what happens when they try to operationalise (don’t you just hate that bureaucrat jargon?) this strategy:

[Canadian] officials in Afghanistan and Ottawa say the crucial element in the strategy – long-term development – is not happening because the Canadian International Development Agency has failed to issue the contracts and cash that are the lynchpin of success for Canadian and coalition forces.

How is it supposed to work?

The idea behind the plan, which has been running since the summer, is that the military moves into a village at the invitation of local chieftains, clears out any insurgents and the roadside bombs or weapons caches they left behind. Then military engineers perform a few quick-fix projects.

Sounds reasonable.  So what’s wrong?

CIDA money and contracts haven’t followed in sufficient volume to boost local employment and start the long-term development envisioned in the model village plan.

Oh.  That is strange, isn’t it?  Isn’t Development one of the D’s?

As it turns out, in 2005 during the last international policy formulation exercise, the minister responsible for CIDA did take an active role in the ‘whole of government’ process.  In her forward to the Development part of the 3D strategy she said:

I am pleased to present Canada’s International Policy Statement-A Role of Pride and Influence in the World: Development. It is an ambitious but achievable plan for enhancing Canada’s role in the fight against global poverty…I look forward to working with Parliament and all Canadians to make this vision a reality. 

Ah, but that was then, and this is now.  Note the disclaimer on the current CIDA website hosting the 2005 document:

Please note that this document was never officially adopted by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). It is available for reference only.

Upon closer inspection, it seems that the surface gloss of the Comprenhensive Approach, so vital to any modicum of success in COIN, belies a host of ‘conditions’.  For example, NATO tempers its commitment to the Comprehensive Approach with the following ‘yeah, but’:

…it must be done in a way that doesn’t compromise any organisation’s independence.  Nor must it infringe on the humanitarian space to which Non-Governmental Organisations understandably attach great importance.

Well, with that kind of a caveat the risk of a dis-integrated approach far outweighs the likelihood of a joined up strategy.  Magnify that across all Alliance and Coalition members and coherence is just about doomed.   This does not bode well as the Alliance and its constituent parts look to move away ahead.  The move (at least in some quarters) seems to be a transition from a military-led effort to a development-led one.  Will the dynamic change or will turf wars continue?

In the end, we are left with the familiar conundrum:

3D or not 3D, that is the question.

A lot of resource out there about null object pattern. Fundamentally this is a design pattern that describes an object what behave like a null value, but it can be handled as a regular object in the given context.

Let’s see the benefit of this pattern with Doctrine.

Suppose we have a gallery with images. Every gallery have a “preview” image (one from the its images), which represents the gallery in lists (or anywhere else). How can we handle the situation when a gallery has no preview image? (We want to show a “no-image.jpg” there.)

Let’s start with the schema:

Gallery:
  tableName: gallery
  columns:
    id:
      type: integer
      unsigned: true
      notnull: true
      primary: true
      autoincrement: true
    name:
      type: string(200)
    preview_image_id:
      type: integer
      unsigned: true
      notnull: true
  relations:
    PreviewImage:
      local: preview_image_id
      foreign: id
      type: one
      class: Image
Image:
  tableName: image
  columns:
    id:
      type: integer
      unsigned: true
      notnull: true
      primary: true
      autoincrement: true
    gallery_id:
      type: integer
      unsigned: true
      notnull: true
    file:
      type: string(255)
    title:
      type: string(255)
  relations:
    Gallery:
      local: gallery_id
      foreign: id
      foreignAlias: Images
      onDelete: CASCADE

We have a working database schema, where gallery has a foreign key (preview_image_id) to its preview image. The set up of this field is up to the developers. What will happen when we want to show the preview image at this state of model?

First, we add some code to Image model class, to simplify the image handling.

class Image extends BaseImage
{
  const TYPE_ORIGINAL = 1;
  const TYPE_THUMBNAIL = 2;

  // ...
  public function getImageName($type = self::TYPE_ORIGINAL)
  {
    $info = pathinfo($this->file);
    $names = array(
      self::TYPE_ORIGINAL => $this->file,
      self::TYPE_THUMBNAIL => $info['filename'].'_thumb.'.$info['extension'],
    );

    if (!isset($names[$type]))
    {
      throw new InvalidArgumentException();
    }

    return $names[$type];
  }

  public function getImagePath($absolute = true)
  {
    $path = '/uploads/images';
    $absolute_path = sfConfig::get('sf_web_dir').$path;

    if (!file_exists($absolute_path))
    {
      mkdir($absolute_path, 0777, true);
      chmod($absolute_path, 0777);
    }

    return $absolute ? $absolute_path : $path;
  }

  public function getImageFile($type = self::TYPE_ORIGINAL, $absolute = false)
  {
    return $this->getImagePath($absolute).'/'.$this->getImageFile($type);
  }
  // ...
}

So what will happen when we want to show the preview image?

<img src="<?= $gallery->PreviewImage->getImageFile(); ?>" />

It depends on. If we have a setted up preview image, it works well. If not, we have a fatal error. So with this model, we always have to check the foreign field (preview_image_id), it’s a null value or an object. It would be convenient we just use that object ($gallery->PreviewImage), and the object can handle the special case (the null object).

We have to do two things for that:

1. set up Doctrine to give a “fresh” Image object, when we call $gallery->PreviewImage (this will be the null object)
2. have to handle the case when file field is empty

The first constraint can be done easily. Just remove the notnull instruction from the preview_image_id field of Gallery model. With this setup the Doctrine will return a new Image instacne.

The second constraint can be done by small modification of our model code:

class Image extends BaseImage
{
  // ...
  public function getImageName($type = self::TYPE_ORIGINAL)
  {
    if ($this->file)
    {
      $info = pathinfo($this->file);
      $names = array(
        self::TYPE_ORIGINAL => $this->file,
        self::TYPE_THUMBNAIL => $info['filename'].'_thumb.'.$info['extension'],
      );
    }
    else
    {
      $names = array(
        self::TYPE_ORIGINAL => '/images/no_image.jpg',
        self::TYPE_THUMBNAIL => '/images/no_image_thumb.jpg',
      );
    }

    if (!isset($names[$type]))
    {
      throw new InvalidArgumentException();
    }

    return $names[$type];
  }

  public function getImageFile($type = self::TYPE_ORIGINAL, $absolute = false)
  {
    if (!$this->file)
    {
      return $this->getImageName($type);
    }
    return $this->getImagePath($absolute).'/'.$this->getImageFile($type);
  }
  // ...
}

That’s it.

Experientialism is a mighty juggernaut plowing through contemporary religion. Its attractive helmet hits headlong into foundational truth where God’s revelation trumps perceived notions of His actions through and around the church.  These two candidates stand in great opposition to one another for those seeking a guidepost in determining their way, for not all things experienced are all things true.  We are warned about false teachers and false teachings (2Peter 2:1) and we are told to test the spirits (1John 4:1) and exercise discernment for false prophets and wolves live and breathe among us. Unfortunately, few actually heed this caution.

Felt-needs and personal preferences are main highways where experience travels at high speeds regardless of what the Word of God might have to say.  One can hear the cries of exasperation, “Surely what I feel can’t be wrong! What do you mean it doesn’t matter what I saw?!”  Sensory theology trumps real doctrine as “what I feel” has become “what I know”, never mind that it goes against Scripture. We would do well to remember the warnings found in the book of Colossians – “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” And “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen…” (Col.2:8,18) Many professed believers love to talk on and on about their spiritual experiences through dreams and visions but these claims must always pass the scrutiny of Scripture, not merely experience.

Those who have much invested in their experiential theology are usually not open to being challenged.  To question their experience is, in their minds, to question their spirituality.  If one were to dismantle an experience that they’ve put so much hope and joy into, it is tantamount to calling them an unbeliever. At least that’s mostly how they react.

However, Scripture alone should be our ultimate authority in determining truth and truth should help us organize our practice and become a filter through which we view what has happened.  To do otherwise is to lean into the mystic camp and build bonfires around Gnostic ceremonies.

May we flee what is of self and cling to what is truly of Him.

Murray has a list of good advice for preachers…will keep it in mind as I prepare for preaching on Sunday week.

As a huge fan of David Gregory’s book Dinner With a Perfect Stranger, I finally got around to watching the short film The Perfect Stranger which was made several years ago based on the book.  (Not to be confused with Halle Barry and Bruce Willis picture of the same name.)

No, I’m not one of those conservative Christians who is afraid to use the word movie, but with the main body clocking in at only 70 minutes, film seems the better word.   Interviews with the two main cast members and the director — curiously and awkwardly embedded in the closing credits — keep things running past the 90 minute mark.

Gregory’s book could be classified as fiction or apologetics, depending on how you read it.    It certainly incorporates a lot of teaching in the narrative; the kind of Socratic dialog that The Shack is now famous for.    If you’ve taken even the most basic course in personal evangelism, the content of this is nothing new.   However, for a friend, neighbor, relative or co-worker, this could be the ‘tract’ you’ve been looking for.

Basically, The Perfect Stranger is to any other apologetics video what the H2O Course is to the Alpha Course. It brings the issues of faith and doctrine to life in the form of Nikki Cominksy,  a young wife and mother; and her dinner companion who may or may not be Jesus Christ.   Yes, that’s Nikki — female — not Nick as in the print version.

If you missed the novel, basically the lead character is given a written invitation to have dinner at a favorite restaurant, signed by someone claiming to be Jesus Christ.   Fearing a trick by people in the office — more so in the print version — but wanting to enjoy the free meal, the offer is taken up.   Having a female lead in the movie version just adds to the vulnerability.

But then it gets complicated.   In the print sequel, A Day With A Perfect Stranger, it is the wife who meets the same stranger on an airplane.   In a film version of that second novel; the couple’s daughter, Sarah, is now older and on her way to college when she encounters Another Perfect Stranger. That one, I haven’t seen yet.

Nikki is played earnestly and sincerely by Pamela Brumley, while Jesus Christ is played by Jefferson Moore, who is also credited as the writer of the “original” screenplay, though it appears to follow the heart and soul of the book rather closely.   The quality of the DVD is not bad, although stretching out the introductory scenes, so we could get to know Nikki better might have helped, as the picture advances rapidly to the actual dinner.

As stated previously, if you’ve got friends who have questions about religion in general and/or Christianity in particular, this could be the gift or witness item you’re looking for.   Watch it yourself first, and be prepared for the follow up discussion that will almost certainly arise.

Note: In the U.S. both movies are also available in a two disc set at $29.99 US; both films retail individually for $14.99 US each.  The books are still in hardcover only (and large print hardcover) and are also available in a set or individually.

Months ago I warned people, that if the Government runs health care it would be the downfall of this country. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s $848 billion health care reform legislation passed a key test on a partisan 60-39 vote that sends the bill to the Senate floor for debate.

No big surprise, many who feel the same way as I, knew it would pass. It had to in order for the nightmare changes to come for this country. Kiss America the Free goodbye.

This Health Care Bill will change forever, Americans citizens rights to have their own choices when it comes to their Health and that of their children.

Lets start with breast cancer issue and women shall we?

Millions of women get mammograms each year. We have been told for years that at 40 we need a baseline mammogram to make sure we can monitor lumps and bumps in breast tissue. This was told to us women by a board of doctors endorsed by the Government.

This board is the: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Now this SAME government medical board comes out a week ago and says women who don’t have any problems will not need a mammogram till 50. EXCUSE ME?…. To save us women the stress?

This is just another way our new government health care plan will CUT COSTS and put women’s lives at risk. What a bunch of propaganda this new statement is. Couldn’t they come up with something better than this poor excuse? America currently leads the world in breast cancer research and it is because of EARLY DETECTION!

Do you know how much money the Federal government will save if they cut mammograms down?

Most of the mammograms the health insurance companies will CURRENTLY cover, but if they are now a part of the government run health care plan why should they? They may drop that little bomb on you yet.

Mammograms generally costs between $100 and $150 for each screening. Add that up with the millions of women that get screened every year.

Then, count the extra cost to the government of women who have no insurance or who are in financial difficulty and need assistance like Medicaid. We are now talking millions of dollars. This is where our Federal Government will start curtailing expenses to pay for their bogus plan.

This picture is just the beginning of what’s to come folks. Stay tuned for massive protests and more than likely civil violence.

Next on the list will be men’s prostate screening. I believe that’s already being discussed. Hey guys I didn’t forget about you, after all the government will need to make sure you die off too.

Will it also mean that premature babies will now have to go before a medical board that will decide if they get to be taken care of or not in a hospital?  Premature babies in a hospital cost A LOT of money, especially if you are receiving government assistance. We don’t want to burden the new health care plan anymore excess monies do we? You can have another baby right?

The Government will help females pay for abortions on this bill too. It isn’t because they care about you either. Population culling has begun and this just helps that plan. I fear at some point we will be told we are only allowed to have a certain amount of children and any other pregnancies must be aborted. The Chinese already have the ONE CHILD POLICY. Look out America we could be next.

After all, one of our American politicians (ANITA DUNN) admire the former Chinese leader Mao Zedong (Tse-tung). Anita Dunn did say that her two favorite political philosophers are Mother Theresa and Mao, seemingly as a joke, but how much of a joke was it really? How much does she really admire this killer. Someone needs to find out and probe her background. What a hypocrite you are ANITA DUNN!

You cannot put a beautiful, giving, loving and SELFLESS being like Mother Teresa anywhere near someone as hateful as Mao Tse Tung.

Here is a brief run down on this communist leader:

Mao Zedong (Tse-tung) Born (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976) was a Chineserevolutionary, political theorist and Communist leader.  His theoretical contribution toMarxism-Leninism, military strategies, and his brand of Communist policies are now collectively known as Maoism.

Mao Tse Tung, was one of the most prolific mass murderers of the twentieth century. Oh and while you are considering what I am writing let me give you a couple of quotes from Mao Tse Tung:

“Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy.”

“Passivity is fatal to us. Our goal is to make the enemy passive.”

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

“Politics is war without bloodshed, while war is politics with bloodshed.”

“The atom bomb is a paper tiger which the United States reactionaries use to scare people. It looks terrible, but in fact it isn’t.”

Shouldn’t Americans be LISTENING CAREFULLY and paying CLOSE ATTENTION to what comes out of Anita Dunn’s mouth too? After all, she claims to represent “The American people” or does she?

No one was watching the American Born Military Officer at Fort Hood with his Jehad ideals and look what he ended up doing to his “So called Fellow Americans.”

WAKE UP AMERICA. Get a clue for goodness sake.

Back to the Health Care Issue and the taxes involved in it.

What happened to NO NEW TAXES?

The new health Bill has about 15 new taxes in it.

You will not get to use any of these health care plans till 2014, but guess what?

The Federal government plans to tax YOU now in order to get you ready for 2014. You will not be able to afford this plan in 2014 as your pockets will have been bled dry from paying the taxes involved in this idiotic bill.

Oh I know …ask me how much America’s Trade Deficit will be in the year 2014?

We are already at 12 trillion dollars in 2009 so you do the math.

Um and while I’m acting all smart and stuff, guess what?

That trade deficit figure for 2014 does not even include health care costs!

Oh wow, we will be so up to our eyeballs in debt you may as well just take yourself out behind the shed and pull the trigger right now.

At current trends Cumulative Trade Deficit will equal GDP by 2014, but current trends won’t continue. The economy will collapse well before that. This above graph was done in 2006 and it did NOT include the Health Care Bill.

If I had a politician giving me a choice of reading their Health Care Bill and the Constitution, I would take 17 constitution pages any day over some 2000 congress pages in Health Care that have NOTHING to do with the great American Constitution.

Besides, trying to understand this Health Care Bill is like playing game of twister. All physically twisted up and still have NOTHING to show for it.

The only thing I did get out of this whole health care bill is that WE AMERICANS are going to have NEW TAXES that will cost Americans MORE money and BANKRUPT THIS COUNTRY. Ask me again, how much our deficit will be again in 2014?

Lets see…(estimated at)$18,350.0 Trillion dollars % of GDP 99.8 and those figures DO NOT have the Health Care Costs Included in them.

2009: 12 Trillion that’s a WOW to begin with.

2010: (est) 14,456.3,

2011 (est.)15,673.9,

2012 (est.)16,565.7,

2013 (est.)17,440.2,

WE ARE IN A LOT OF TROUBLE FOLKS!

Sometime between 2030 and 2040 spending will exceed Government Revenues and that’s the truth so wake up will you. I hope you pay attention before it is too late. Make a decision NOW, time is up.

Love and Blessings

Victoria

When you have had enough and want to join us …

Click the link here

Check it out…can’t hurt right?

Glenn Beck – Current Events & Politics – Glenn Beck: The Plan.