Well, it's been a couple of years that my blog has languished without any input from me. Been all caught up in the facebook thing, and only recently have realized that it has no eternal value. Can't seem to help myself though. It's a good way to connect with family and friends, and I enjoy finding others who think like me.
Speaking of which, what does it mean to find someone who "thinks like me"? What I've found in my lifetime is that even though you may find others who think like you in many different ways, there always seems to be something that they will believe in that will have you in dismay.
Let's face it, reality is that humans are intricate beings with different ways of thinking that will confound each other easily. But how important is it that we think alike? Well, when it comes to Christianity, it is very important, and allows us to develop creeds that bind like-minded individuals together in spiritual unity.
Let's take the term "evangelical." There has been of late a concerted effort on the part of liberals and progressive-leaning individuals to hi-jack the term. You might ask, "To what end?" I'll answer that: because the conservative message has dominated in religious circles for several decades to the dismay of theological liberals and progressives. Because of this domination of the conservative message, the message of liberals and progressives has been effectively marginalized. So, in an effort to build legitimacy for their positions and beliefs, they have asserted that they are "evangelical".
Of course the term, properly understood in its historical context, is much different than what individuals such as Mr. Throckmorton wish to portray. Coming up through the 70's, on up to the 90's, and into the 2000's, we have heard it said in the media that evangelicals (used as a term to describe religious conservatives) either showed up at the polls, or didn't show up, as the case may be.
When we think of the Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family, and Liberty University, and Regent University, we also identify those institutions with their founders: Gary Bauer, James, Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. Along with identifying these individuals, we attach the tag "evangelical" to them.
Those of us old enough to know these individuals from news reports and from following them through their foundations, have also come to understand how the world views them. Not only did the World refer to them as "evangelical", but they also referred to them as "fundamentalist". Hence, an evangelical was one who fought for political issues that mirrored their religious beliefs.
However, Mr. Throckmorton wants to tell you that he is an evangelical too. He won't tell you if he voted for Obama, though I would suspect that he is especially enamored with him (though I admit this is conjecture on my part).
What I have found is that liberals tend to engage in sophistry and wordplay to obfuscate and confuse their perceived enemy. In this case, the enemy is the conservative voice which is typically anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, and anti-socialist.
So, when an evangelical conservative should run into someone who claims that they are "Christian", and "evangelical", and yet is opposed to one of the three aforementioned conservative positions, it causes us to question the validity of such claims, and to seek credentials which can establish the authenticity of such claims.
In the case of Mr. Throckmorton, what we find is an individual who claims the label "evangelical" yet rejects the "anti-homosexual" doctrine which is espoused by evangelical conservatives.
There are many of us that reject the notion that you can be an evangelical, AND believe that homosexuality is not a sin against God.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
ISIS or ISIL - Does it matter?
Ok, so it's been a few years that I haven't posted anything, and I'm asking myself, "Why do you even leave this blog up?" I had a purpose when I first started, and that was to expose the lies that stream through our media, but specifically from the lips of influential church people, or others who want to speak morality for America.
Today, America finds itself in dire straits when we speak of the morality of our country. We have come so far as a nation, but it has been in the wrong direction. Today, we have a president who not only has inserted himself repeatedly into moral questions of the day (primarily those regarding racism), but (in my opinion) has specifically encouraged our country to change the direction of our morality to meet that of the Devil's.
One issue that highlights this is his usage of the term "ISIL" when referring to the terrorists who are running amok on the world stage, killing people who they disagree with. Most recently, they have removed the heads of 21 Christians. In response to this, the State Department issued a statement that refused to acknowledge that the victims of this mass beheading were "Christian", or that the perpetrators were "Terrorists" or "Islamic".
And that falls in perfectly with his use of the term ISIL when referring to such murderous groups of people. That's because ISIS stands for "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" while ISIL stands for "The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant."
Both of those terms embrace the concept that this group of terrorist people desire to install a Caliphate that encompasses the lands of Syria and Iraq. But if you read the actual Arabic from which the terms are derived from, it is the following: al dawla al islamiyye f'il iraq w'al sham.
According to the website, Quartz, it is the last word (sham) which lends a more accurate meaning, being typically rendered as "Levant". But Levant encompasses much more area than just Iraq and Syria. According to Wikipedia, the Levant's geographical area includes the countries and regions identified as Cyprus, Egypt, Hatay (a province of Turkey), Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, and Turkey.
The interesting thing as you read through the geographical areas that ISIL covers is that it includes this little place called "Israel." So while ISIL continues to march forward with its murderous goal of installing the Caliphate of the Levant, we see that our President seems to be much more knowledgeable regarding its ultimate goals than the general population of America is.
Now, it doesn't matter if the President is trying to send a signal of affirmation to Muslim countries that he understands and sympathizes with their cause. It only matters that YOU ARE IGNORANT of its meaning. As long as we stay ignorant of its meaning, we remain ignorant of their ultimate goals.
Why should it matter that Israel is included in this Muslim utopia? Because this has been the stated goal of all Muslim countries since the inception of Israel as a nation in 1948. The goal has always been to surround Israel from 3 sides and to "push Israel into the sea".
The terrible irony is that this ongoing effort to destroy Israel means that Arabs have paid the higher price. Their ongoing focus on the destruction of Israel and her interests have prevented the Palestinian Arabs from achieving their own potential as a nation and economy in their own right.
So much effort goes into destroying Israel, that Palestinians have no real economic engine to build their economy, and must rely continuously on whatever the United States and other countries give them in aid to keep their economy running. The politics of Palestine are focused, not on ways to improve the life and standing of its people, but on the means of destroying Israel.
As Daniel Pipes makes note, "The result is plain to see: Arabs are among the world leaders in percentages of dictatorships, rogue states, violent conflicts, and military spending."
So, is Obama propagandizing for ISIL? As I said, it doesn't matter. The whole point of this post is to educate you on the morality of the issue, which is that regardless of which acronym you use to describe these terrorists, their main goal is to destroy not only our way of life, but to destroy the nations that define themselves as autonomous states within the geographical area of the Levant. Their goal is to create a super-state that comprises a significant geographic area. Their goal is to rid all opposition to their ideology, which is a pure, Islamic Caliphate.
Go educate yourself. As for me, I'll be referring to them henceforward as "ISIL" to denote their true self and goals.
Today, America finds itself in dire straits when we speak of the morality of our country. We have come so far as a nation, but it has been in the wrong direction. Today, we have a president who not only has inserted himself repeatedly into moral questions of the day (primarily those regarding racism), but (in my opinion) has specifically encouraged our country to change the direction of our morality to meet that of the Devil's.
One issue that highlights this is his usage of the term "ISIL" when referring to the terrorists who are running amok on the world stage, killing people who they disagree with. Most recently, they have removed the heads of 21 Christians. In response to this, the State Department issued a statement that refused to acknowledge that the victims of this mass beheading were "Christian", or that the perpetrators were "Terrorists" or "Islamic".
And that falls in perfectly with his use of the term ISIL when referring to such murderous groups of people. That's because ISIS stands for "The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" while ISIL stands for "The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant."
Both of those terms embrace the concept that this group of terrorist people desire to install a Caliphate that encompasses the lands of Syria and Iraq. But if you read the actual Arabic from which the terms are derived from, it is the following: al dawla al islamiyye f'il iraq w'al sham.
According to the website, Quartz, it is the last word (sham) which lends a more accurate meaning, being typically rendered as "Levant". But Levant encompasses much more area than just Iraq and Syria. According to Wikipedia, the Levant's geographical area includes the countries and regions identified as Cyprus, Egypt, Hatay (a province of Turkey), Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, and Turkey.
The interesting thing as you read through the geographical areas that ISIL covers is that it includes this little place called "Israel." So while ISIL continues to march forward with its murderous goal of installing the Caliphate of the Levant, we see that our President seems to be much more knowledgeable regarding its ultimate goals than the general population of America is.
Now, it doesn't matter if the President is trying to send a signal of affirmation to Muslim countries that he understands and sympathizes with their cause. It only matters that YOU ARE IGNORANT of its meaning. As long as we stay ignorant of its meaning, we remain ignorant of their ultimate goals.
Why should it matter that Israel is included in this Muslim utopia? Because this has been the stated goal of all Muslim countries since the inception of Israel as a nation in 1948. The goal has always been to surround Israel from 3 sides and to "push Israel into the sea".
The terrible irony is that this ongoing effort to destroy Israel means that Arabs have paid the higher price. Their ongoing focus on the destruction of Israel and her interests have prevented the Palestinian Arabs from achieving their own potential as a nation and economy in their own right.
So much effort goes into destroying Israel, that Palestinians have no real economic engine to build their economy, and must rely continuously on whatever the United States and other countries give them in aid to keep their economy running. The politics of Palestine are focused, not on ways to improve the life and standing of its people, but on the means of destroying Israel.
As Daniel Pipes makes note, "The result is plain to see: Arabs are among the world leaders in percentages of dictatorships, rogue states, violent conflicts, and military spending."
So, is Obama propagandizing for ISIL? As I said, it doesn't matter. The whole point of this post is to educate you on the morality of the issue, which is that regardless of which acronym you use to describe these terrorists, their main goal is to destroy not only our way of life, but to destroy the nations that define themselves as autonomous states within the geographical area of the Levant. Their goal is to create a super-state that comprises a significant geographic area. Their goal is to rid all opposition to their ideology, which is a pure, Islamic Caliphate.
Go educate yourself. As for me, I'll be referring to them henceforward as "ISIL" to denote their true self and goals.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Arizona's Illegal Immigration Law
What do we say and do about the Obama Administration’s usurpation of American’s rights?
Ok, so here we are: Arizona has passed a law which states that local law enforcement officers must pursue investigation of immigration infractions if, in the course of investigating some other violation, they suspect a violation of the federal immigration code.
Over the course of several decades, political forces have dulled the edge of the blade of justice, so that illegal immigrants are no longer pursued or prosecuted. Indeed, the matter of immigration has been politicized to an extreme by the left, so that those who wish to clamp down on the steady wave of illegal immigrants are now considered “racist” and “bigots” for trying to prevent “honest” people from working for a living.
In addition, it seems that every month brings another city making a declaration that they will be a City of Refuge, meaning that officers are prohibited from arresting any illegal immigrant if their only crime is entering the country illegally. In some instances, such as in San Fransisco, these cities of refuge go so far as to instruct their city employees that they may not assist Federal officers in any way to apprehend or prosecute illegal immigrants.
The Federal Government has now filed suit in Federal Court against Arizona’s new law, seeking an injunction on the basis that Arizona is usurping Federal authority. This is based on the assumption of “preeminent authority,” which is to say that the Federal Government believes that only it has the authority to write laws which govern immigration issues.
At stake here is no less than the breakdown of the Constitution as it was intended. Several arguments have come forward in defense of the Obama Adminstration’s suit against Arizona, the most prominent being that Arizona is preempting Federal law. But, anyone who understands the doctrine of preemption, knows clearly that this doctrine is not applicable in this regard.
The Doctrine of Preemption is a doctrine that states that if a state or municipality should pass a law that CONFLICTS with Federal law, that the Federal law will take precedence. It’s very important to understand that if there is no confliction, then the Federal government has no standing to file a lawsuit. Indeed, the actual filing of this suit is a frivolous action that Americans should be ashamed of for their leaders.
This is why the Obama Administration’s actions can clearly be seen as political and not on behalf of an “abused” people. Are we to believe that these liberals in the DOJ are unaware of another equally applicable doctrine called the Doctrine of Concurrent Enforcement? This doctrine states that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if the state is assisting the federal government in enforcement of immigration laws, it is stated that that state is concurrently enforcing what is already prohibited under federal law. This happens all the time!
Ok, so here we are: Arizona has passed a law which states that local law enforcement officers must pursue investigation of immigration infractions if, in the course of investigating some other violation, they suspect a violation of the federal immigration code.
Over the course of several decades, political forces have dulled the edge of the blade of justice, so that illegal immigrants are no longer pursued or prosecuted. Indeed, the matter of immigration has been politicized to an extreme by the left, so that those who wish to clamp down on the steady wave of illegal immigrants are now considered “racist” and “bigots” for trying to prevent “honest” people from working for a living.
In addition, it seems that every month brings another city making a declaration that they will be a City of Refuge, meaning that officers are prohibited from arresting any illegal immigrant if their only crime is entering the country illegally. In some instances, such as in San Fransisco, these cities of refuge go so far as to instruct their city employees that they may not assist Federal officers in any way to apprehend or prosecute illegal immigrants.
The Federal Government has now filed suit in Federal Court against Arizona’s new law, seeking an injunction on the basis that Arizona is usurping Federal authority. This is based on the assumption of “preeminent authority,” which is to say that the Federal Government believes that only it has the authority to write laws which govern immigration issues.
At stake here is no less than the breakdown of the Constitution as it was intended. Several arguments have come forward in defense of the Obama Adminstration’s suit against Arizona, the most prominent being that Arizona is preempting Federal law. But, anyone who understands the doctrine of preemption, knows clearly that this doctrine is not applicable in this regard.
The Doctrine of Preemption is a doctrine that states that if a state or municipality should pass a law that CONFLICTS with Federal law, that the Federal law will take precedence. It’s very important to understand that if there is no confliction, then the Federal government has no standing to file a lawsuit. Indeed, the actual filing of this suit is a frivolous action that Americans should be ashamed of for their leaders.
This is why the Obama Administration’s actions can clearly be seen as political and not on behalf of an “abused” people. Are we to believe that these liberals in the DOJ are unaware of another equally applicable doctrine called the Doctrine of Concurrent Enforcement? This doctrine states that a law is not conflict-preempted if the state law prohibits the same behavior that is already prohibited by federal law. So, if the state is assisting the federal government in enforcement of immigration laws, it is stated that that state is concurrently enforcing what is already prohibited under federal law. This happens all the time!
Monday, May 24, 2010
Nazis and Obama
Newt Gingrich is not my favorite Republican. It has been well documented how Gingrich left his dying wife for another woman, all the while promoting "Family Values". Gingrich's actions epitomized everything that had gone wrong with the Republican Party, because while they had excellent ideas and a conservative party platform that average America related to, they continued to live lives that were hypocritical to that platform.
Bill Clinton deserved being impeached, not just for lying to a grand jury, but for his immoral behaviors which were unfitting for representing the American people. But, with that said, Gingrich's resignation was bittersweet, and probably long overdue as a result of his failure to perform ethically in office.
I'm not sure why or how he suddenly has found his morals and conservatism, but it's amazing how RINOs suddenly find their "true" roots when the country demands it. Look at McCain, and how he did an about face, and is running a conservative campaign that is making Marco Rubio look like an Obama sycophant.
But, with all of that said, here's something else that deserves saying: "The conservative statements and points that Gingrich delivers are excellent statements, worthy of our defense." It doesn't matter to me if a Liberal or a Conservative says that "Abortion is wrong." Whoever says it, I will agree with them. So too with other conservative statements.
Just because Gingrich is a RINO does not mean that his conservative statements are untrue. So, what has Gingrich said that needs defense? Well, he said in his new book that Obama's administration can be likened to the Nazi and Soviet-era regimes. I agree. There is not really any need to defend that statement, because it is true. True statements don't need defense, but they do need explanations for those who are hopelessly dense.
To begin with, Gingrich did not liken the atrocities of Nazi Germany to anything that the Obama administration is doing, though that is exactly what the liberals are trying to make it out to be. Gingrich is likening the socialistic endeavors of Obama's administration with those same endeavors of the Nazi and Soviet regimes.
Let the liberals cry all they want. I can understand why they don't like to be compared to such regimes, because people can draw logical conclusions that socialist policies ultimately result in a restriction of the liberties of a people. Just ask anyone that tried to leave communist Germany, or U.S.S.R. countries - those people voted with their feet by the hundreds of thousands. So very many of them paid for their attempt at freedom with their very lives.
Will it become necessary for American citizens to pay with their lives if they desire to resist their government's socialistic advancement? Only time will tell.
Bill Clinton deserved being impeached, not just for lying to a grand jury, but for his immoral behaviors which were unfitting for representing the American people. But, with that said, Gingrich's resignation was bittersweet, and probably long overdue as a result of his failure to perform ethically in office.
I'm not sure why or how he suddenly has found his morals and conservatism, but it's amazing how RINOs suddenly find their "true" roots when the country demands it. Look at McCain, and how he did an about face, and is running a conservative campaign that is making Marco Rubio look like an Obama sycophant.
But, with all of that said, here's something else that deserves saying: "The conservative statements and points that Gingrich delivers are excellent statements, worthy of our defense." It doesn't matter to me if a Liberal or a Conservative says that "Abortion is wrong." Whoever says it, I will agree with them. So too with other conservative statements.
Just because Gingrich is a RINO does not mean that his conservative statements are untrue. So, what has Gingrich said that needs defense? Well, he said in his new book that Obama's administration can be likened to the Nazi and Soviet-era regimes. I agree. There is not really any need to defend that statement, because it is true. True statements don't need defense, but they do need explanations for those who are hopelessly dense.
To begin with, Gingrich did not liken the atrocities of Nazi Germany to anything that the Obama administration is doing, though that is exactly what the liberals are trying to make it out to be. Gingrich is likening the socialistic endeavors of Obama's administration with those same endeavors of the Nazi and Soviet regimes.
Let the liberals cry all they want. I can understand why they don't like to be compared to such regimes, because people can draw logical conclusions that socialist policies ultimately result in a restriction of the liberties of a people. Just ask anyone that tried to leave communist Germany, or U.S.S.R. countries - those people voted with their feet by the hundreds of thousands. So very many of them paid for their attempt at freedom with their very lives.
Will it become necessary for American citizens to pay with their lives if they desire to resist their government's socialistic advancement? Only time will tell.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
What does it mean to say "God is Sovereign"?
God's will runs like a fine oiled machine which is made from holy metal. People on both sides of the debate claim that God is sovereign, and that He does what He wants to. Neither side wants to try to say that God is not sovereign.
But, what do they say when they are challenged on their ideas? Ahhhhhh, now that is the question. For example, when I listen to one who is oriented as an Arminian, I might hear her say: "I was driving my car when some knucklehead ran a red light. Their car just missed my car by a fraction of a second. God was watching over me!"
And what Christian would dare to challenge such a testimony? None that I know of. Yet, if I were to challenge her thinking regarding God's sovereignty over her life, she would claim that only she had the power to bring about her salvation. "Yes", she would argue, God's power made it possible for her to become saved, but it was only by her acquiescence (her permission) that it could occur. Without her own personal acknowledgment, nothing would have happened - God's power and sovereignty did not extend to this part of her life.
On the other hand, if I were to challenge one who is oriented as a Calvinist, I might hear them say, "I was driving my car when some knucklehead ran a red light. Their car just missed my car by a fraction of a second. God watches over His children."
And, once again, no true Christian would dare to challenge such a testimony. However, what will this Calvinist say to those Christians who find themselves riddled with cancer? Should they then say that God has abandoned them? Is it God's will that His children get cancer?
I maintain that things happen that God does not ordain. Like the tower of Siloam that fell down and there was eighteen men who were in the tower who died. Jesus asked, "[Do you suppose]...that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4)
Was this event part of God's will? Of course it was. But the real question is whether or not God's hand caused this to happen. Or, to put it another way, is it required of God to orchestrate every minute occurence, down to the splitting of an atom, in order for God's design to proceed?
I answer, "No." What do you think?
But, what do they say when they are challenged on their ideas? Ahhhhhh, now that is the question. For example, when I listen to one who is oriented as an Arminian, I might hear her say: "I was driving my car when some knucklehead ran a red light. Their car just missed my car by a fraction of a second. God was watching over me!"
And what Christian would dare to challenge such a testimony? None that I know of. Yet, if I were to challenge her thinking regarding God's sovereignty over her life, she would claim that only she had the power to bring about her salvation. "Yes", she would argue, God's power made it possible for her to become saved, but it was only by her acquiescence (her permission) that it could occur. Without her own personal acknowledgment, nothing would have happened - God's power and sovereignty did not extend to this part of her life.
On the other hand, if I were to challenge one who is oriented as a Calvinist, I might hear them say, "I was driving my car when some knucklehead ran a red light. Their car just missed my car by a fraction of a second. God watches over His children."
And, once again, no true Christian would dare to challenge such a testimony. However, what will this Calvinist say to those Christians who find themselves riddled with cancer? Should they then say that God has abandoned them? Is it God's will that His children get cancer?
I maintain that things happen that God does not ordain. Like the tower of Siloam that fell down and there was eighteen men who were in the tower who died. Jesus asked, "[Do you suppose]...that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?" (Luke 13:4)
Was this event part of God's will? Of course it was. But the real question is whether or not God's hand caused this to happen. Or, to put it another way, is it required of God to orchestrate every minute occurence, down to the splitting of an atom, in order for God's design to proceed?
I answer, "No." What do you think?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Hate the sin, love the sinner
Have you ever heard that phrase? I hate it. Just what is that supposed to mean? Well, to those loopy evangelicals, it means that they don't want the world to charge them with hating non-Christians. The World really hammers away at the evangelical Church, because she dares to say that if you don't accept Christ, you're going to hell. I guess that embarrasses many evangelicals, so they have tried to reframe what they say, and to put their words together in a way that is "less offensive" to the World.
"What's wrong with that" you say? Nothing, as long as you don't change the TRUTH of Biblical proclamations. After all, the Bible does say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in AND, follow a life of conformity to Jesus.
So, if I stop saying "You're going to hell if you don't repent of your sinful life and follow Christ", and instead start saying, "God loves you just as you are: come to Him and He will change your life", have I changed the truth of the Gospel in any meaningful way? And, the answer is, "yes."
The first statement is direct and to the point, while the second still requires you to tell the hearer more information that will bring about salvation - namely, repent and follow Christ. If that is not part of the Gospel proclamation, then it is not the same gospel.
In the same manner, if I say, "God hates the sinner", then I am poo-pooed as intolerant and hateful. Instead, others have instructed evangelicals to proclaim that "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin." Really?
That's an interesting take on how the Bible speaks about sin. First of all, how can it be that God hates sin, but loves the sinner, when the sinner is still tied to his sins?
If anyone can share with me how this is possible, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.
"What's wrong with that" you say? Nothing, as long as you don't change the TRUTH of Biblical proclamations. After all, the Bible does say that you will go to hell if you don't believe in AND, follow a life of conformity to Jesus.
So, if I stop saying "You're going to hell if you don't repent of your sinful life and follow Christ", and instead start saying, "God loves you just as you are: come to Him and He will change your life", have I changed the truth of the Gospel in any meaningful way? And, the answer is, "yes."
The first statement is direct and to the point, while the second still requires you to tell the hearer more information that will bring about salvation - namely, repent and follow Christ. If that is not part of the Gospel proclamation, then it is not the same gospel.
In the same manner, if I say, "God hates the sinner", then I am poo-pooed as intolerant and hateful. Instead, others have instructed evangelicals to proclaim that "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin." Really?
That's an interesting take on how the Bible speaks about sin. First of all, how can it be that God hates sin, but loves the sinner, when the sinner is still tied to his sins?
If anyone can share with me how this is possible, I'd like to hear it. Thanks.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Sandra Bullock's OPINION
I read where Sandra Bullock played a Christian wife in a movie about a black boy who was homeless and was taken in by the character she plays. The movie is "Blind Side".
Sandra says that she met Leigh Anne Tuohy (the woman that she portrays in this movie), and that "She was so open and honest and forthright, and I said, wow, I finally met someone who practices but doesn't preach."
I've noticed quite a few Christians who have said that the Tuohy's must be great Christian folks, because (after all) a non-Christian said that they were!!
Pardon me, but beware when the world speaks good of you. This isn't to say anything about the Tuohy's, but rather to say that if you find that the world LIKES you, you might not be living your life Christ-like enough. After all, Christ "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." (Luke 21:17)
Since when do Christians look for such glowing affirmations from the world? Please, Christians, be careful. It would be better for the world to say that they hated me because I preached the message that Christ taught me. Even if they claim that I am lying, I would take such pleasure in their condemnation.
That's the problem with so many churches today: they change their services so that the world speaks highly of them. I heard of "that great church for kids" and that they even have a mosh pit for them to have "fun." Another popular church attracted an acquaintance of mine who thoroughly enjoyed the Rock band playing "Free Bird" during services. He couldn't remember what was preached.
John 15:18: "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you."
Sandra says that she met Leigh Anne Tuohy (the woman that she portrays in this movie), and that "She was so open and honest and forthright, and I said, wow, I finally met someone who practices but doesn't preach."
I've noticed quite a few Christians who have said that the Tuohy's must be great Christian folks, because (after all) a non-Christian said that they were!!
Pardon me, but beware when the world speaks good of you. This isn't to say anything about the Tuohy's, but rather to say that if you find that the world LIKES you, you might not be living your life Christ-like enough. After all, Christ "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." (Luke 21:17)
Since when do Christians look for such glowing affirmations from the world? Please, Christians, be careful. It would be better for the world to say that they hated me because I preached the message that Christ taught me. Even if they claim that I am lying, I would take such pleasure in their condemnation.
That's the problem with so many churches today: they change their services so that the world speaks highly of them. I heard of "that great church for kids" and that they even have a mosh pit for them to have "fun." Another popular church attracted an acquaintance of mine who thoroughly enjoyed the Rock band playing "Free Bird" during services. He couldn't remember what was preached.
John 15:18: "If the world hates you, you know that it hated me before it hated you."
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Dan's Interview with Matt Lauer - part 2
What's in consideration in this post is Dan Merchant's theology. Specifically, his failure to give a proper account and interpretation of the Bible in an effort to promote his movie. I would call that dishonest, except that I would be trying to impugn his character based upon something that I don't know firsthand.
But, what I do know firsthand is what the Bible says, because I can read it for myself, and then compare it to what Merchant claims it says. Let's pick up the conversation between Lauer and Merchant toward the end of the interview.
At the end of this interview, Lauer asks Merchant, "Maybe this plays, Dan, into this whole 'division' thing, but what would you say to a Christian who, who might be offended by the seeming frivolous look you take at, at religion and faith in this, in this particular effort?"
Dan then answers: "Well, what I hope people would see is how deadly serious I am, uh, that as believers, we need to get back to what Jesus preached, which is 'Love one another'. The Last Supper, which is, people will know The Da Vinci Code, there's a painting about it. . ."
Matt Lauer: "I heard about it, it's in the Bible too."
Dan: "That's right....yuhhh, but the Last Supper, the, the followers say, 'Hey, Lord, what's the most important commandment? He says, 'Love one another'."
Matt Lauer: "Yeah, we seemed to have strayed far away from that, in many cases."
Dan: "I'm afraid so."
As you can see, Dan makes the claim that during the Last Supper, the disciples asked Him which commandment was the greatest. But you can read all three accounts of the Last Supper, and you will not find that discussion anywhere. Yet, if you look in the Johanine Gospel, which DOES NOT HAVE A RECORD OF the Last Supper (but does mention it), that is where you will find the disciples being told by Jesus that "a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another. As I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)
But even beyond the fact that Dan got it wrong, associating the Last Supper with the New Commandment, he compounds his error by failing to maintain the context of the issuance of this command. Specifically, this New Commandment is given, NOT to the whole world, but only to His disciples. And it is given to His disciples so that the REST OF THE WORLD can witness that they are truly Christians, because they really do love one another. That is why Jesus says, "By this shall all men know that you are MY disciples..."
But, what I do know firsthand is what the Bible says, because I can read it for myself, and then compare it to what Merchant claims it says. Let's pick up the conversation between Lauer and Merchant toward the end of the interview.
At the end of this interview, Lauer asks Merchant, "Maybe this plays, Dan, into this whole 'division' thing, but what would you say to a Christian who, who might be offended by the seeming frivolous look you take at, at religion and faith in this, in this particular effort?"
Dan then answers: "Well, what I hope people would see is how deadly serious I am, uh, that as believers, we need to get back to what Jesus preached, which is 'Love one another'. The Last Supper, which is, people will know The Da Vinci Code, there's a painting about it. . ."
Matt Lauer: "I heard about it, it's in the Bible too."
Dan: "That's right....yuhhh, but the Last Supper, the, the followers say, 'Hey, Lord, what's the most important commandment? He says, 'Love one another'."
Matt Lauer: "Yeah, we seemed to have strayed far away from that, in many cases."
Dan: "I'm afraid so."
As you can see, Dan makes the claim that during the Last Supper, the disciples asked Him which commandment was the greatest. But you can read all three accounts of the Last Supper, and you will not find that discussion anywhere. Yet, if you look in the Johanine Gospel, which DOES NOT HAVE A RECORD OF the Last Supper (but does mention it), that is where you will find the disciples being told by Jesus that "a new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another. As I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another." (John 13:34-35)
But even beyond the fact that Dan got it wrong, associating the Last Supper with the New Commandment, he compounds his error by failing to maintain the context of the issuance of this command. Specifically, this New Commandment is given, NOT to the whole world, but only to His disciples. And it is given to His disciples so that the REST OF THE WORLD can witness that they are truly Christians, because they really do love one another. That is why Jesus says, "By this shall all men know that you are MY disciples..."
Dan's Interview with Matt Lauer - part 1
Ok, so here's a link to a YouTube video of an interview that Dan Merchant had with Matt Lauer. I wanted to give a critique of the interview on a couple of points that Dan makes that (SURPRISE!!!) I disagree with.
To begin with, Dan refers to himself as "relatively a Conservative Christian", but unfortunately throughout his four-year work on this project, has rarely, if ever, spoken directly concerning his political or religious views, and just where does he stand on the issues.
That is a very important point, because if it can be shown just how liberal Dan Merchant REALLY is, it would completely destroy his unspoken claim to neutrality and residing in the center of the spectrums. On the other hand, if Merchant is more to the right on the issues, but fails to articulate them and defend them, then he is no different than a Trojan Horse campaign to silence those on the Right with which he supposedly shares an ideology.
I read an interview that Dan gave in a gay (Queer) magazine, and when he was asked to answer where he stood on the issue of church/state separation, he demurred to the fact that such a declaration would be above his pay-grade, so to speak. He stated that he was not a Constitutional lawyer, and therefore could not offer an opinion.
Really. You have an incredible thesis that you are trying to promote which is chock full of your opinions regarding how Christians on the Right should act, and you don't have an opinion of the issue of the separation of church and state? Incredible. Is there really a thinking American who doesn't have a position on that issue?
I'm maintaining that Dan carefully crafts his answers just as subtly as a gifted politician, who understands that his answers can later be used against him. But people say things over the course of time that reveal exactly where they stand, and so it should be no surprise that we can cull that kind of information from the internet through careful and judicious examination of what is out there.
I believe that a Conservative would very quickly allow that there is no such thing as the church/state separation. He would have no qualms with making his voice heard on this issue. A Liberal with an agenda to promote, on the other hand, would be very careful not to anger the people he's trying to convince to join him in a "less strident" discussion.
If you want to know where Merchant stands on the political/religious spectrum, you only need to speak to those who receive him readily, and speak in glowing terms of his movie. Take, for example, Tom Krattenmaker (who I previously discussed in this blog) who says that "Dan is a (sic) evangelical, albeit a mavericky one." "Mavericky one"?? LOL What does that mean? Does that mean that Dan preaches the Gospel of salvation? Well no, because it isn't contained in his "Christian" movie.
But let's be honest here, shall we? A "maverick" is one who is at odds with members of his own organization or party. Like when the Liberals talk kindly of Olympia Snowe (RINO-ME), or John McCain (RINO-AZ). They call such Republicans "Mavericks". Do you get where I'm going with that? It doesn't appear difficult to connect the dots between liberalism and Dan Merchant.
If Republicans who turncoat their own party can be labled "RINO's", then what do you label a Christian who turncoats Conservatist Christianity? A "CINO" - Conservative In Name Only?
To begin with, Dan refers to himself as "relatively a Conservative Christian", but unfortunately throughout his four-year work on this project, has rarely, if ever, spoken directly concerning his political or religious views, and just where does he stand on the issues.
That is a very important point, because if it can be shown just how liberal Dan Merchant REALLY is, it would completely destroy his unspoken claim to neutrality and residing in the center of the spectrums. On the other hand, if Merchant is more to the right on the issues, but fails to articulate them and defend them, then he is no different than a Trojan Horse campaign to silence those on the Right with which he supposedly shares an ideology.
I read an interview that Dan gave in a gay (Queer) magazine, and when he was asked to answer where he stood on the issue of church/state separation, he demurred to the fact that such a declaration would be above his pay-grade, so to speak. He stated that he was not a Constitutional lawyer, and therefore could not offer an opinion.
Really. You have an incredible thesis that you are trying to promote which is chock full of your opinions regarding how Christians on the Right should act, and you don't have an opinion of the issue of the separation of church and state? Incredible. Is there really a thinking American who doesn't have a position on that issue?
I'm maintaining that Dan carefully crafts his answers just as subtly as a gifted politician, who understands that his answers can later be used against him. But people say things over the course of time that reveal exactly where they stand, and so it should be no surprise that we can cull that kind of information from the internet through careful and judicious examination of what is out there.
I believe that a Conservative would very quickly allow that there is no such thing as the church/state separation. He would have no qualms with making his voice heard on this issue. A Liberal with an agenda to promote, on the other hand, would be very careful not to anger the people he's trying to convince to join him in a "less strident" discussion.
If you want to know where Merchant stands on the political/religious spectrum, you only need to speak to those who receive him readily, and speak in glowing terms of his movie. Take, for example, Tom Krattenmaker (who I previously discussed in this blog) who says that "Dan is a (sic) evangelical, albeit a mavericky one." "Mavericky one"?? LOL What does that mean? Does that mean that Dan preaches the Gospel of salvation? Well no, because it isn't contained in his "Christian" movie.
But let's be honest here, shall we? A "maverick" is one who is at odds with members of his own organization or party. Like when the Liberals talk kindly of Olympia Snowe (RINO-ME), or John McCain (RINO-AZ). They call such Republicans "Mavericks". Do you get where I'm going with that? It doesn't appear difficult to connect the dots between liberalism and Dan Merchant.
If Republicans who turncoat their own party can be labled "RINO's", then what do you label a Christian who turncoats Conservatist Christianity? A "CINO" - Conservative In Name Only?
Friday, October 16, 2009
Who is Tom Krattenmaker?
In watching Lord Save Us, there is an interview of Tom Krattenmaker, where the narrator asks "How's that for symbolism?" The narrator is speaking in reference to a Christian group being shown in a footwashing ceremony performed on the homeless and street people. Tom Krattenmaker then appears in the video stating,
However, there is this common belief among modern-day evangelicals which is embraced by this neo-evangelicalism, which is this concept that we are to evangelize others primarily by the life that we live. In other words, that people should/would/will come to Christ by witnessing how Christians live. But this concept is rife with misunderstanding, because it assumes that Christians will never fail, and that the world at large (represented through our media outlets), would consistently show a balanced representation of Christianity. Of course, that is the furthest thing from the truth.
But, it's interesting that Krattenmaker mirrors the views of Dan Merchant, and his movie, especially since Krattenmaker, in his USA Today column, describes the Christian evangelicalism of Tim Tebow as "a far-right theology." And that is, afterall, what Dan Merchant is trying to marginalize, is "far-right theology."
Here's what Krattenmaker says regarding Christian Athlete Tim Tebow:
"I think it's hard not to be inspired by witnessing something like that. And, I think that if you want to talk about what is the best face of religion; the face of religion that is not divisive, but that brings people together and lifts us up? That's it."But of course. [insert sarcasm here] But that is not the "face" that saves. It's the face that "brings people together and lifts us up", but it isn't the face that brings salvation to the lost - though it can be a tool to reach those within that group that is targeted who are receptive to the message of the gospel. And certainly, no decent Christian would speak against such an outward display of grace toward the community, because it seeks to express a central teaching of Christ to "love thy neighbor as thyself."
However, there is this common belief among modern-day evangelicals which is embraced by this neo-evangelicalism, which is this concept that we are to evangelize others primarily by the life that we live. In other words, that people should/would/will come to Christ by witnessing how Christians live. But this concept is rife with misunderstanding, because it assumes that Christians will never fail, and that the world at large (represented through our media outlets), would consistently show a balanced representation of Christianity. Of course, that is the furthest thing from the truth.
But, it's interesting that Krattenmaker mirrors the views of Dan Merchant, and his movie, especially since Krattenmaker, in his USA Today column, describes the Christian evangelicalism of Tim Tebow as "a far-right theology." And that is, afterall, what Dan Merchant is trying to marginalize, is "far-right theology."
Here's what Krattenmaker says regarding Christian Athlete Tim Tebow:
"Certainly, Tim Tebow must be applauded for the good he does working on his father's missions, but he should be seen, too, as one who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else's religion. Let's not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving Jewish kids and parents, for example, or by champions for interfaith cooperation, when adored sports figures like Tebow use their fame to push a Jesus-or-else message."Yes, there's that pesky "Jesus-or-else message" that Dan Merchant and Tom Krattenmaker find so offensive, which is CENTRAL to Biblical theology: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, except through the Son." (Jesus, as quoted from John 14:6)
What does the title mean?
Dan Merchant:
The simple EASY answer: Not everyone believes in the same God.
Ok, I have to post this disclaimer: I have NOT seen the movie yet. It's only playing in one theatre, so I have a reasonable excuse, though I do hope to correct that today. I have seen nearly every clip that is available on the internet, and I'm assuming that those little vignettes are sufficient to give me an ideological centerline to the movie. I have read MOST of the book. I'm thinking that the book and the movie are parallel in their ideology. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that. If anything, the book is usually MORE comprehensive in its presentation.
I jumped into the fray initially out of concern for the title. The title speaks from an anti-Christian perspective "Lord, save US from YOUR followers." It doesn't matter that Merchant could mount a counter argument to my claim, because it is sufficient that many non-believers are quickly, and easily identifying with such a title.
Let us not be fooled into believing that Dan Merchant, et al, did not carefully consider the title. The title is the first thing that you will most likely consider. If you see a poster for the book/movie, you will see a giant Jesus holding the sign of the same title, superimposed, and centered, upon an outline of the United States. The imagery is clear, Jesus is dividing America - or, according to Merchant, His followers are dividing America. But even Jesus said that His ideas, when implemented in a believer's life, would divide between himself and others who rejected Christ.
To me, the question naturally comes, "Why is it that a Christian would advance such concepts TO THE WORLD COURT OF OPINION?" After all, isn't the Bible explicit in its commands against that very thing? Here's what the Bible says about Christ's followers airing their dirty laundry before the world:
Now, the context is taking a matter between two Christians to a worldly court/legal system. How is this any different than Merchant's movie being offered to the world as a means of convincing Christians that we ought to do what the world believes? The world judges by A DIFFERENT STANDARD than us. Their opinions on a subject rarely coincide with God's opinion on that same subject. And that is why Paul admonished Christians to settle matters amongst ourselves.
Going to the world not only opens up Christians to mockery, but Christ as well. I don't want to be guilty of that!
"If you were to meet ten average Americans on the street, nine of them would say they believe in God. So why is the Gospel of Love dividing America?"
The simple EASY answer: Not everyone believes in the same God.
Ok, I have to post this disclaimer: I have NOT seen the movie yet. It's only playing in one theatre, so I have a reasonable excuse, though I do hope to correct that today. I have seen nearly every clip that is available on the internet, and I'm assuming that those little vignettes are sufficient to give me an ideological centerline to the movie. I have read MOST of the book. I'm thinking that the book and the movie are parallel in their ideology. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that. If anything, the book is usually MORE comprehensive in its presentation.
I jumped into the fray initially out of concern for the title. The title speaks from an anti-Christian perspective "Lord, save US from YOUR followers." It doesn't matter that Merchant could mount a counter argument to my claim, because it is sufficient that many non-believers are quickly, and easily identifying with such a title.
Let us not be fooled into believing that Dan Merchant, et al, did not carefully consider the title. The title is the first thing that you will most likely consider. If you see a poster for the book/movie, you will see a giant Jesus holding the sign of the same title, superimposed, and centered, upon an outline of the United States. The imagery is clear, Jesus is dividing America - or, according to Merchant, His followers are dividing America. But even Jesus said that His ideas, when implemented in a believer's life, would divide between himself and others who rejected Christ.
To me, the question naturally comes, "Why is it that a Christian would advance such concepts TO THE WORLD COURT OF OPINION?" After all, isn't the Bible explicit in its commands against that very thing? Here's what the Bible says about Christ's followers airing their dirty laundry before the world:
When one of you has a complaint against another, do you take your complaint to a court of sinners? Or do you take it to God's people? Don't you know that God's people will judge the world? And if you are going to judge the world, can't you settle small problems? Don't you know that we will judge angels? And if that is so, we can surely judge everyday matters. Why do you take everyday complaints to judges who are not respected by the church? I say this to your shame. Aren't any of you wise enough to act as a judge between one follower and another? Why should one of you take another to be tried by unbelievers? (1 Corinthians 6:1-6)
Now, the context is taking a matter between two Christians to a worldly court/legal system. How is this any different than Merchant's movie being offered to the world as a means of convincing Christians that we ought to do what the world believes? The world judges by A DIFFERENT STANDARD than us. Their opinions on a subject rarely coincide with God's opinion on that same subject. And that is why Paul admonished Christians to settle matters amongst ourselves.
Going to the world not only opens up Christians to mockery, but Christ as well. I don't want to be guilty of that!
Dan Merchant visits me!
I was encouraged by Dan Case to write an email to Dan Merchant, and so I did. I received his reply today. I'm gonna converse with him a bit more to try and answer a few questions, and I'll report back on my findings.
Yes, Dan Merchant stopped by to see what I was saying about him and his movie. What do you think he thought?
Well, to put it in a nutshell, I've made a few "accusations" concerning Dan Merchant. Foremostly, I've "accused" him of being a Social Liberal. That was culled from an online news article which gave him a favorable review of his movie. Hardly a hostile source, so is it not reasonable for me to AGREE with them?
After reading his reply, I was left wondering if he was interested in defending against my statements, because he never once contested on any single statement that I had made. What shall I think regarding this non-committal approach to discussion of an extremely important issue facing Christendom?
I'll report back when I've formulated my thoughts concerning this...
Yes, Dan Merchant stopped by to see what I was saying about him and his movie. What do you think he thought?
Well, to put it in a nutshell, I've made a few "accusations" concerning Dan Merchant. Foremostly, I've "accused" him of being a Social Liberal. That was culled from an online news article which gave him a favorable review of his movie. Hardly a hostile source, so is it not reasonable for me to AGREE with them?
After reading his reply, I was left wondering if he was interested in defending against my statements, because he never once contested on any single statement that I had made. What shall I think regarding this non-committal approach to discussion of an extremely important issue facing Christendom?
I'll report back when I've formulated my thoughts concerning this...
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Myopia, Hyperbole, Hysteria, Truth
Merchant states that there are four main ways that our ideas are conveyed across ideological spectrums:
Myopia
Hyperbole
Hysteria
Truth
It’s a quaint theory, but it doesn’t represent reality. Are people myopic in their presentations? Of course, that is ONE form of presentation when you are unable to engage in one-on-one conversation with the person to whom you wish to convey your ideas. But stating that this is “typical” fanfare from Christians is quite misleading.
Are people hyperbolic in their presentations? Again, of course they are. Hyperbole is a great way to get others to focus on the main point because they will naturally digress from the exaggerated one.
Are people hysterical in their presentations? Oh, brother, you sure can bet on that. I just finished watching Al Franken blow up in a conversation with Michael Medved. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEj7vit4G74) If you’re human, and you have emotions (which humans actually have), then you will probably blow it every once in a while. That’s not to say that is the best approach at handling things, but that everyone screws up once in a while.
The truth of the matter is that people, regardless of which side of the fence that they are standing on, use Myopia, Hyperbole, Hysteria, and Truth with varying mixtures. Preachers and expositors of all kind, if they are any good at the art of rhetorical delivery, will come to recognize and accept that all of those styles are acceptable in establishing a point.
Myopia
Hyperbole
Hysteria
Truth
It’s a quaint theory, but it doesn’t represent reality. Are people myopic in their presentations? Of course, that is ONE form of presentation when you are unable to engage in one-on-one conversation with the person to whom you wish to convey your ideas. But stating that this is “typical” fanfare from Christians is quite misleading.
Are people hyperbolic in their presentations? Again, of course they are. Hyperbole is a great way to get others to focus on the main point because they will naturally digress from the exaggerated one.
Are people hysterical in their presentations? Oh, brother, you sure can bet on that. I just finished watching Al Franken blow up in a conversation with Michael Medved. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEj7vit4G74) If you’re human, and you have emotions (which humans actually have), then you will probably blow it every once in a while. That’s not to say that is the best approach at handling things, but that everyone screws up once in a while.
The truth of the matter is that people, regardless of which side of the fence that they are standing on, use Myopia, Hyperbole, Hysteria, and Truth with varying mixtures. Preachers and expositors of all kind, if they are any good at the art of rhetorical delivery, will come to recognize and accept that all of those styles are acceptable in establishing a point.
Dare to LIVE the Truth!!
There are many clues as to where Merchant stands if you really want to look. For example, on page 12 of his book, Merchant states that “I hear people on TV ranting about “Nine out of 10 people believe in God….therefore we should throw Darwin out of school, sing ‘Michael, Row Your Boat Ashore’ before class, and all vote Republican.”
Follow me as I “put words” in Merchant’s mouth, and cull his thoughts and ideas from out of his mind, and put them out directly for all to see: “What kind of people are strident? Well, they are the ones that are “ranting”, don’t you know? And here’s a rant, one where those on the right (you know, those extremist, 6-day creationist types) are saying that since 9 out of 10 people are Christian that we should therefore teach Christian doctrine in school. Well, hell no, that ain’t happenin’ on my watch! If we can get them to capitulate by forcing them to engage in a “civil” discourse, then we will win without arguing!!!”
That’s the movie, in a nutshell. After all, who among us REALLY believes that conducting Man on the Street interviews is a proper way of analyzing how Christians should conduct themselves? If you do, then you need to hang up your Jesus coat, because Jesus said that He did not come here to bring peace between “us” and “them.”
Matthew 10 we find Jesus speaking of how we are to be sent out to proclaim the gospel, and yet the disciples know that this will bring much persecution. Jesus senses this and tells his disciples not to fear those people who would silence them. He tells them, “Don’t be afraid, because you are worth more than many sparrows.”
If I listen to Dan Merchant, I should refrain from speaking with boldness the message of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus clearly tells us that if we are afraid to speak His name, He will likewise not speak their name (convey him as His disciple) to the Father. “Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven.”
He clearly stated that as we lived our lives out the way that He expected us to, that His ideals would divide between those who accepted and those who rejected. The division is so severe that it would play itself out even within families.
His next set of instructions are telling, because therein lies the ‘secret’ to being a true disciple of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies will be the members of your own household.”
Don’t just dare to KNOW the truth. Dare to LIVE the truth!
Follow me as I “put words” in Merchant’s mouth, and cull his thoughts and ideas from out of his mind, and put them out directly for all to see: “What kind of people are strident? Well, they are the ones that are “ranting”, don’t you know? And here’s a rant, one where those on the right (you know, those extremist, 6-day creationist types) are saying that since 9 out of 10 people are Christian that we should therefore teach Christian doctrine in school. Well, hell no, that ain’t happenin’ on my watch! If we can get them to capitulate by forcing them to engage in a “civil” discourse, then we will win without arguing!!!”
That’s the movie, in a nutshell. After all, who among us REALLY believes that conducting Man on the Street interviews is a proper way of analyzing how Christians should conduct themselves? If you do, then you need to hang up your Jesus coat, because Jesus said that He did not come here to bring peace between “us” and “them.”
Matthew 10 we find Jesus speaking of how we are to be sent out to proclaim the gospel, and yet the disciples know that this will bring much persecution. Jesus senses this and tells his disciples not to fear those people who would silence them. He tells them, “Don’t be afraid, because you are worth more than many sparrows.”
If I listen to Dan Merchant, I should refrain from speaking with boldness the message of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Yet Jesus clearly tells us that if we are afraid to speak His name, He will likewise not speak their name (convey him as His disciple) to the Father. “Whoever publicly acknowledges me I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. But whoever publicly disowns me I will disown before my Father in heaven.”
He clearly stated that as we lived our lives out the way that He expected us to, that His ideals would divide between those who accepted and those who rejected. The division is so severe that it would play itself out even within families.
His next set of instructions are telling, because therein lies the ‘secret’ to being a true disciple of Christ: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies will be the members of your own household.”
Don’t just dare to KNOW the truth. Dare to LIVE the truth!
Lord, Save me with your Truth
One of the things that Dan Merchant does in his book, and movie, is to reduce those of us on the right to being strident, and unyielding with a penchant for winning the debate at all costs. I’m really having a hard time distinguishing how it is that those on the other side of the debate don’t fall into that same trap. Why is it that Merchant insists that only those on the right are prone to use such tactics and devices?
Dan Merchant is a Social Liberal. I am a Social Conservative. What does a Social Conservative do? A Social Conservative is politically or morally ideological and believes the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. (see: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_conservative )
If that is true, then it stands to reason that a Social Liberal is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal )
What is at stake between Dan Merchant and me – or as an extension, between Social Liberalism and Social Conservatism? The answer is, the rights to insist on what Social framework will guide America.
Yet if we listen to the movie and book, the proper/correct avenue of approach is to compromise your values, close down the gauntlet, and capitulate to THEIR understanding. The only winners in that scenario are those who are to the left of center in the political/religious debate.
Am I wrong? How so? The movie’s (ergo Dan’s) position is that it is those on the Right who must silence their rhetoric. After all, those on the Left are only strident in opposition to those on the Right. If you close down the rhetoric from the Right, you will automatically close down the rhetoric from the Left. Or, so goes the argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that Dan Merchant accomplishes is to learn something about “where my new friends were coming from.” The stated purpose of this learning was to enable Dan to “have a more interesting and fruitful dialogue with them.” (pg 6)
I’m still left wondering where the “fruit” is in all this. If all we have to show for this is a “conversation”, I fail to see how this is “fruitful” to Christianity, because all it accomplishes is to show that Dan Merchant does not believe that, as a disciple of Christ, he has been commanded to “preach the gospel to all the world.” (Mark 16:15) This command of Jesus does not insist that the conversation should be two-way, but is a one-way conversation, “Us” bringing “them” the message of salvation and repentance.
More to follow……
Dan Merchant is a Social Liberal. I am a Social Conservative. What does a Social Conservative do? A Social Conservative is politically or morally ideological and believes the government has a role in encouraging or enforcing traditional values or behaviors based on the belief that these are what keep people civilized and decent. (see: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/social_conservative )
If that is true, then it stands to reason that a Social Liberal is a reformulation of classical liberalism, which saw unrestrained capitalism as a hindrance to true freedom. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Liberal )
What is at stake between Dan Merchant and me – or as an extension, between Social Liberalism and Social Conservatism? The answer is, the rights to insist on what Social framework will guide America.
Yet if we listen to the movie and book, the proper/correct avenue of approach is to compromise your values, close down the gauntlet, and capitulate to THEIR understanding. The only winners in that scenario are those who are to the left of center in the political/religious debate.
Am I wrong? How so? The movie’s (ergo Dan’s) position is that it is those on the Right who must silence their rhetoric. After all, those on the Left are only strident in opposition to those on the Right. If you close down the rhetoric from the Right, you will automatically close down the rhetoric from the Left. Or, so goes the argument.
Ultimately, the only thing that Dan Merchant accomplishes is to learn something about “where my new friends were coming from.” The stated purpose of this learning was to enable Dan to “have a more interesting and fruitful dialogue with them.” (pg 6)
I’m still left wondering where the “fruit” is in all this. If all we have to show for this is a “conversation”, I fail to see how this is “fruitful” to Christianity, because all it accomplishes is to show that Dan Merchant does not believe that, as a disciple of Christ, he has been commanded to “preach the gospel to all the world.” (Mark 16:15) This command of Jesus does not insist that the conversation should be two-way, but is a one-way conversation, “Us” bringing “them” the message of salvation and repentance.
More to follow……
Sunday, October 11, 2009
I'm not getting it.....yet!
I really want to get to the bottom of this movie! My senses are telling me that Dan Merchant is not someone who resides in “the middle of the road” when it comes to political or religious issues.
Here’s what I think about him, and I haven’t even been able to find anything about him on the internet. When you Google his name, or his movie, nearly ALL of the links that come up are in regards to his movie, Lord Save Us From Your Followers, and they are all glowing reviews. Listen: NOBODY GETS 100% POSITIVE REVIEWS. Where are the negative reviews? Something is just not right.
Ok, so what to do? Well, we shall be detectives, and we shall look for clues. Keep searching the internet, but change the search parameters. Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to research on Google, but this time, I’m going to instruct Google NOT to return any results that have “Lord Save Us From Your Followers” in the article or title. You can do that by entering the following: “Dan Merchant, -“Lord Save Us From Your Followers” ” The hyphen (negative sign) tells Google NOT to show any results that contain those words. By putting the quotation marks around the whole title, it tells Google not to return any results that contain that group of words in that specific order.
Ok. Now, what do I find? Well, there are different things that you find, not many of them very interesting, and none of them having to do with the movie. But that’s ok, because we don’t want to read any more POSITIVE critiques of the movie. If you want to really know about the movie, you’ve got to discover who the man is that is responsible for the movie.
And here is my first clue: I found an interview of Dan Merchant by Robert Schuller, on The Hour of Power. Well, without even looking at the interview, I can already tell you that Robert Schuller denies the exclusivity of the Gospel, preaching Universalism – a belief that all people will ultimately end up in heaven by God’s side. Now, tell me, if you do not believe in Universalism, would you agree to be interviewed by Robert Schuller, and thereby promote the understanding that you don’t oppose his belief in Universalism?
Ok, so that’s the first problem. Let’s take a look at the interview. You’ll find it at this URL: http://movie.teacup.com/video/watchframe/2eb7bad0c4c45171
Notice that Dan Merchant is wearing his “Bumper Sticker” uniform. If you look carefully, you will find left-leaning bumper stickers of a positive nature, such as an anti-war sticker, “Who would Jesus bomb?”, or another one dealing with world hunger. But those stickers which represent the religious right are of a negative nature, such as “Get the Hell out of my way, I’m late for church!”
This unbalanced presentation is evident in all of the materials regarding this movie that I can find. For example, Dan Merchant claims that “I spoke with Liberals and Conservatives, both believers and nonbelievers, and everyone in between.” Yet some of the “conservatives” interviewed are not known for their religious work, but for their political work, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic), talk show radio host, Michael Reagan (a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel), Tony Campolo (Liberal theologian), and Jay Barnes (President of Bethel University, who allowed gay activists onto his campus under the guise of diversity of opinions: “We have an obligation, if we claim to be a liberal arts university, to credibly represent multiple points of view.”)
You’ll notice that Barnes and Campolo are presented by Merchant as “evangelicals” and therefore “conservatives.” Yet nowhere do we find those that Dan would consider the more strident voices in Christianity who would at the very least attempt to balance a presentation of grace with TRUTH. That’s because Dan Merchant’s agenda is one of marginalizing those on the right.
A telling commentary by Robert Schuller is found in his introduction of Dan Merchant that he “has been invited to speak at some of the most liberal academic institutions in the United States.” Why is that? Not because that is where the battle is, but because that is where his base of support lies. After all, what liberal will argue with Dan Merchant that Christians are divisive and that they spread hate?
What other things can be learned of this movie and the man who made it? Well, he quotes Philip Yancey as stating that “No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.” Really? And this is proven how?
Another technique of Dan Merchant is to redefine the Gospel from that of being one of “repentance” to being one of “grace and love.” In all of the clips I can find that promote the movie, the Gospel is repeatedly referred to as “The Gospel of Grace.”
Dan Merchant asks, “What if the Church became known, not for what it’s against, but for what it’s for?” An interesting concept, but how does that play out in the grand scheme of things? Well, to begin with, there is the old adage, “If you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” We must be careful, and understand that Christianity is not simply a proponent of peace of love, but that it accomplishes that through the transformation of lives from one of death and destruction, to one of living for Christ.
You can’t help people accomplish that transformation by simply telling them that “God is love” and ignoring the wrath of God that stands upon their heads. Not only are we fooling ourselves with such drivel, but we are simply sealing their fate to one of eternity without God.
Here’s what I think about him, and I haven’t even been able to find anything about him on the internet. When you Google his name, or his movie, nearly ALL of the links that come up are in regards to his movie, Lord Save Us From Your Followers, and they are all glowing reviews. Listen: NOBODY GETS 100% POSITIVE REVIEWS. Where are the negative reviews? Something is just not right.
Ok, so what to do? Well, we shall be detectives, and we shall look for clues. Keep searching the internet, but change the search parameters. Here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to research on Google, but this time, I’m going to instruct Google NOT to return any results that have “Lord Save Us From Your Followers” in the article or title. You can do that by entering the following: “Dan Merchant, -“Lord Save Us From Your Followers” ” The hyphen (negative sign) tells Google NOT to show any results that contain those words. By putting the quotation marks around the whole title, it tells Google not to return any results that contain that group of words in that specific order.
Ok. Now, what do I find? Well, there are different things that you find, not many of them very interesting, and none of them having to do with the movie. But that’s ok, because we don’t want to read any more POSITIVE critiques of the movie. If you want to really know about the movie, you’ve got to discover who the man is that is responsible for the movie.
And here is my first clue: I found an interview of Dan Merchant by Robert Schuller, on The Hour of Power. Well, without even looking at the interview, I can already tell you that Robert Schuller denies the exclusivity of the Gospel, preaching Universalism – a belief that all people will ultimately end up in heaven by God’s side. Now, tell me, if you do not believe in Universalism, would you agree to be interviewed by Robert Schuller, and thereby promote the understanding that you don’t oppose his belief in Universalism?
Ok, so that’s the first problem. Let’s take a look at the interview. You’ll find it at this URL: http://movie.teacup.com/video/watchframe/2eb7bad0c4c45171
Notice that Dan Merchant is wearing his “Bumper Sticker” uniform. If you look carefully, you will find left-leaning bumper stickers of a positive nature, such as an anti-war sticker, “Who would Jesus bomb?”, or another one dealing with world hunger. But those stickers which represent the religious right are of a negative nature, such as “Get the Hell out of my way, I’m late for church!”
This unbalanced presentation is evident in all of the materials regarding this movie that I can find. For example, Dan Merchant claims that “I spoke with Liberals and Conservatives, both believers and nonbelievers, and everyone in between.” Yet some of the “conservatives” interviewed are not known for their religious work, but for their political work, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (a conservative Catholic), talk show radio host, Michael Reagan (a member of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel), Tony Campolo (Liberal theologian), and Jay Barnes (President of Bethel University, who allowed gay activists onto his campus under the guise of diversity of opinions: “We have an obligation, if we claim to be a liberal arts university, to credibly represent multiple points of view.”)
You’ll notice that Barnes and Campolo are presented by Merchant as “evangelicals” and therefore “conservatives.” Yet nowhere do we find those that Dan would consider the more strident voices in Christianity who would at the very least attempt to balance a presentation of grace with TRUTH. That’s because Dan Merchant’s agenda is one of marginalizing those on the right.
A telling commentary by Robert Schuller is found in his introduction of Dan Merchant that he “has been invited to speak at some of the most liberal academic institutions in the United States.” Why is that? Not because that is where the battle is, but because that is where his base of support lies. After all, what liberal will argue with Dan Merchant that Christians are divisive and that they spread hate?
What other things can be learned of this movie and the man who made it? Well, he quotes Philip Yancey as stating that “No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument.” Really? And this is proven how?
Another technique of Dan Merchant is to redefine the Gospel from that of being one of “repentance” to being one of “grace and love.” In all of the clips I can find that promote the movie, the Gospel is repeatedly referred to as “The Gospel of Grace.”
Dan Merchant asks, “What if the Church became known, not for what it’s against, but for what it’s for?” An interesting concept, but how does that play out in the grand scheme of things? Well, to begin with, there is the old adage, “If you won’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” We must be careful, and understand that Christianity is not simply a proponent of peace of love, but that it accomplishes that through the transformation of lives from one of death and destruction, to one of living for Christ.
You can’t help people accomplish that transformation by simply telling them that “God is love” and ignoring the wrath of God that stands upon their heads. Not only are we fooling ourselves with such drivel, but we are simply sealing their fate to one of eternity without God.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lord Save Us From Your Followers, the Movie
Ok, first subject: The new movie, Lord, Save Us from Your Followers. I recently was encouraged by a fellow employee (who shall remain nameless) to go to see this new movie. I had only heard about it in passing, and my initial instinct was that the film was going to be the Left's newest effort to marginalize those of us on the Right.
Alright, so I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think I've already confirmed that the movie is exactly as what I originally suspected. To begin with, the filmaker included in his movie a scene where he goes to a gay pride parade, and sets up a booth for confession.
That's interesting. So, you set up a confessional booth at a gay pride event, and what do you expect gays to do? Confess? Well, of course not! And did you really believe that was the purpose of the confession booth? Come on, you got to be kidding me. The confessional was not meant for gays and lesbians, but was meant for the filmaker as a means of him confessing his sins against those homosexuals!!
You may be thinking to yourself, "Ok, so what's the problem here? Haven't homosexuals been offended by Christians for the hateful speech that they have engaged in when debating this issue?" Most certainly, but the real issue here is to ask, did the filmaker ever engage in such hateful speech, and if so, then he is proper and right to apologize to them. But the whole confessional booth thing is not a means of simply apologizing for HIS sins, but is a ploy to apologize for ALL CHRISTIANs who have sinned against homosexuals.
That kind of tactic is the same nonsense that has so angered conservatives against Obama when he as gone globetrotting and asking forgiveness for the sins of the United States. There's just something inherently wrong for someone to ask forgiveness for sins that they never committed, on behalf of individuals who may, or may not, be ready to apologize.
Ok, so on the off chance that you may have already seen this movie, I'd like to have your opinion on whether you think the movie is a means to marginalize those on the far right, or is it truly a work of mediation, intended to bring peace and civility to discourse between the two sides? What say YOU?
Alright, so I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think I've already confirmed that the movie is exactly as what I originally suspected. To begin with, the filmaker included in his movie a scene where he goes to a gay pride parade, and sets up a booth for confession.
That's interesting. So, you set up a confessional booth at a gay pride event, and what do you expect gays to do? Confess? Well, of course not! And did you really believe that was the purpose of the confession booth? Come on, you got to be kidding me. The confessional was not meant for gays and lesbians, but was meant for the filmaker as a means of him confessing his sins against those homosexuals!!
You may be thinking to yourself, "Ok, so what's the problem here? Haven't homosexuals been offended by Christians for the hateful speech that they have engaged in when debating this issue?" Most certainly, but the real issue here is to ask, did the filmaker ever engage in such hateful speech, and if so, then he is proper and right to apologize to them. But the whole confessional booth thing is not a means of simply apologizing for HIS sins, but is a ploy to apologize for ALL CHRISTIANs who have sinned against homosexuals.
That kind of tactic is the same nonsense that has so angered conservatives against Obama when he as gone globetrotting and asking forgiveness for the sins of the United States. There's just something inherently wrong for someone to ask forgiveness for sins that they never committed, on behalf of individuals who may, or may not, be ready to apologize.
Ok, so on the off chance that you may have already seen this movie, I'd like to have your opinion on whether you think the movie is a means to marginalize those on the far right, or is it truly a work of mediation, intended to bring peace and civility to discourse between the two sides? What say YOU?
New Beginnings
Today I am trying to start a discussion with my friends and any others who wish to engage in the act of discovering truth. Now, notice that I stated "discovering truth", and not creating truth. There are many who might consider truth something to create for themselves. Therefore, you will see many people say, "That's YOUR truth, not mine" as if to say that truth can be manipulated or tweaked to fit your own style or philosophy.
So, we will be examining many issues from the perspective that truth can be discovered and then applied to each situation, resulting in a consistent application of truth to every aspect of our lives.
I think that this should be fun, and certainly not torturous, so my aim is to do this in a way that we can disagree without calling each other names. Please work with me toward that goal.
If the topic agrees or disagrees with you, please engage myself and others with the reasons that you do. Let's make this a true process of understanding and discovering truth.
So, we will be examining many issues from the perspective that truth can be discovered and then applied to each situation, resulting in a consistent application of truth to every aspect of our lives.
I think that this should be fun, and certainly not torturous, so my aim is to do this in a way that we can disagree without calling each other names. Please work with me toward that goal.
If the topic agrees or disagrees with you, please engage myself and others with the reasons that you do. Let's make this a true process of understanding and discovering truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)