Kiss Me-- I'm an "Adorable Little Rodent" in the "Ecosystem!"

Well, I'm really moving up in the world! Recently I became part of The Truth Laid Bear's Ecosystem, a site that ranks participating websites according to how many others sites are linking to it. I'm still not sure I understand it all, but BloggingPoet Billy Jones has a very helpful article that explains all about it at his site.

Since joining the Ecosystem just a few weeks ago, I've rapidly progressed from an Insignificant Microbe to a Crunchy Crustacean to a Flappy Bird, and right now, I'm an Adorable Rodent! Don't you just want to kiss me? Click here if you want to see My Ecosystem Details.

Well I don't believe in evolution, but I do get a kick out of the funny names given to various rankings within the Ecosystem. Starting from the bottom up, there's:

Insignificant Microbes
Multicellular Microorganisms
Wiggly Worms
Crunchy Crustaceans
Lowly Insects
Slimy Molluscs
Flippery Fish
Crawly Amphibians
Slithering Reptiles
Flappy Birds
Adorable Rodents
Marauding Marsupials
Large Mammals
Playful Primates
Mortal Humans
Higher Beings

As BloggingPoet points out, participating in the Ecosystem doesn't necessarily increase traffic to your site, but it can give you a sense of how much your site is being visited, in comparison with others. I'm encouraged by my speedy "evolutionary progress", though I don't plan on taking it too seriously, as you can probably tell. But I'm happy to find more people visiting my site, and this will give me a handy tool to continue to monitor how I'm doing in that regard.

Growing Your Christian Life Via the Web

Having learned recently how to post and organize website links within a blog, I have now created links to some web resources I hope readers will find helpful. In keeping with my recently adopted philosophy on this, I include links to pages I have personally visited and have benefited from, or that I believe have potential to bless. I can't vouch for the theological validity of the vast array of websites you might encounter as you use these links. However, I think that, employing discernment, one might use them to tap into some fantastic and exciting spiritual resources. I am grateful that such resources exist, and especially, for all the effort on the part of many that goes into making, and also, locating, these sites. It is such resources that, to my mind, reveal what the Internet can be at its best: a place where people might find wisdom that turns into power and revelation in their lives. In fact, through these links one might a acquire a virtual Christian education, receiving not only high-quality teaching and theological discourse, but even opportunity to encounter the Spirit of God! Is is beautiful yet frightening to contemplate that Internet ministries have such a high privilege. Yet such things are possible, and I'm pleased to be able to play a small part in such enterprise through this site.

Below I highlight some of the new resource links I've added (Note: I will likely continue adding to the resources, and tinkering with their organization):

Bibles/Bible Study Resources

It is simply mind-boggling to me that, right from the Internet, you can read a favorite Bible translation or even hear it read to you (Bible Gateway, also includes commentary and search functions), use study tools to search through and study it (Crosswalk.com, GototheBible.com), or even download sophisticated, excellent FREE software (e-Sword). You can learn of the history and reasons for the many translations of the Bible, (Bible Translations-Why so Many?); you could set your home page to a site that will to help you daily to dig more deeply into the Word (StudyLight.org, IVP Quiet Time Bible Study). Or you might devise your own reading and study plan, downloading a daily Bible reading plan to get you started (DJ Bible Reading Plan). In time, you could become a virtual Bible scholar!

And in becoming more intimate with the Lord, many have found that devotionals are very helpful. I have two excellent lists to help you locate one to your liking.

Multi-links

I am pretty good at finding out resources on the web (I have over a thousand bookmarks!), yet I find multi-link sites come in very handy in locating even more sites. I'm most impressed with an eclectic and well-organized links site put together by a couple of Berry College alumni (Mike Morrell and Philip Scriber) called Sites Unseen. Check it out!

On-line Sermons

My lists for these areas is comprised of sites I visit quite often, since I enjoy listening to sermons. These links are largely geared towards listening to free audio sermons via a media player (the players are free too, and can usually be downloaded at the sites, if you don't already have one). You can also also find lots of text sermons at SermonCentral.com.

Christian Teaching

There is real wealth of good Christian teaching material that can be found on the Internet, on almost any topic. One thing I enjoy is doing a "Google" search on a subject I'm interested in researching, say, "The Baptism in the Holy Spirit". When I was working on putting together my own teaching on this topic, I found numerous related articles posted on the web, with many different views represented. These were invaluable in helping me to think more deeply about my theme and formulate my own thoughts. There are so many great teaching sites; I have listed but a few choice ones. Net-burst Net a ministry founded by Grantley Morris, is one of my current favorites, for the range of subjects it tackles, its sense of humor and its serious mission. My link to Desiring God Ministries will bring you into the vast on-line library of teachings by John Piper, pastor, author and Reformed thinker. Other recent discoveries of mine include the Twin City Fellowship (Critical Issues Commentary), Enjoying God Ministries library with Sam Storms, who is described as a charismatic Calvinist on "Sites Unseen" and the Stand to Reason Commentaries. All three of these sites give highly intelligent and well-written teachings on various issues of importance to the Christian community.

There's many more links in areas such as Apologetics & Culture (check out Breakpoint --I use this as my home page in Firefox), Music and Arts, Film Reviews, and Theology, but I'll leave it to you to explore and to discover these. You may ask, why do I have both Reformed and Charismatic theological resources listed? Well, I think that there is truth to be learned about living a more full Christian life in both of these theological perspectives, although I know there are Reformed thinkers who don't regard Charismatic thinking very biblical, and vice-versa.

For PDA lovers, I list some sites that will help you find ways to use your PDA for spiritual growth. Memoware's religion section has many classic public domain Christian works that you may download and read on your PDA. A nifty tool is iSiloX, a software that enables you to download web pages and view them on your PDA.

And finally, there are lots of free Christian books you can view or even download and print out. Check out some of the links.

Happy surfing, and may God bless you through these sites!

P.S. If you have any favorite sites you think I should add to any of these categories, please post me a comment!

Blogroll, Anyone?

I'm a relative "newbie" in the world of blogging and I've visited many blogs, with a view to getting some creative inspiration. One thing I noticed is that many blogs list huge numbers of websites, or "blogrolls", as they are called. Thinking these were important for a successful blog, I added them to my site too.

Some blog/sites organize such lists under categories, which is certainly helpful to the reader perusing them (I just learned how to do that). But I have wondered lately, are exhaustive lists of blogs/sites truly necessary? Do the person(s) who create these enormous blogrolls really visit all of these sites? Perhaps, but it seems to me that it is highly unlikely that they would continue to visit all these places regularly, or else that's about all they would be doing.

Perhaps because some blogs have been around for a while they end up with these extravagantly long blogrolls. Still, I wonder. As a new blogger, I gave into the temptation to add popular blogs to my blogroll, with the vague hope that somehow this would generate traffic to my site. I think I also wanted to give the impression that I was well-versed in the "blogosphere".

But after giving this issue more thought, I think I'll be more selective about which websites and blogs I promote on my site. I don't want to link to sites just because they're popular or because it might benefit me to be associated with them. I think I'll feel a lot more comfortable if I link to sites I have personally visited, respect, and genuinely admire. Plus, I don't want to inadvertently endorse sites (which I think I would do by listing them), whose views I may be in total disagreement with-- just so I can have a vast, "representative" listing. I think I can engage with the world without listing worldly blogs.

Why Blog/The Faithful Blogger

OK, so I am trying to be a good blogger. Meaning, I'm writing on topics that interest me and hopefully, saying something that interests others. I also want the writing to be high-quality, although I am also trying to be spontaneous and free-flowing, not belaboring every single post.

But all is for naught if people aren't even reading my blog, right? Well, not necessarily. I do feel that even if no one at all read my blog, it is still worth my time to put my thoughts into writing as I have done; it helps me think through issues more deeply, clarify my thinking, and in the process, gain better insight into what I really do think and believe.

Of course, these are pretty well-known benefits of writing-- so why blog? Why not just put my musings into a private journal or computer diary?

Hmmm. That's a good question. Why am I blogging anyway?

My blog is Christian, so I'm presenting a Christian point of view; adding my own (hopefully distinctive) voice to the dialogue in the marketplace of thought and ideas. I have learned, from people like Francis Schaeffer and C.S. Lewis, that a particular worldview is expressed by the thoughts and ideas we embrace and promote, and that ideas have powerful consequences. The ideas of thinkers, philosophers and people of influence in media and elsewhere eventually trickle down into popular thinking, becoming embedded into a society's way of life through the passing of laws, the writing of textbooks and curricula that reflects these views, media promotion, and other means.

For example, why do so many today consider abortion to be a woman's right? The view of abortion that many hold today can ultimately be traced back to ideas-- ideas that crept into the thinking of the Supreme Court justices that made the ruling in the famous (infamous) Roe vs. Wade case. Subsequently, a practice that was once illegal and viewed as immoral progressively came to be seen as not only legal, but also moral. Surely many since Roe vs Wade have thought, could it be legal if it were not also moral? So the passage of laws that have made abortion legal and the promotion of abortion values by various propagandists (artists, media, film directors, political organizations, etc.) have together shaped the thinking of the last generation, so that many now grow up thinking of abortion as this sacred "right" (if they have not questioned the popular notion).

So one important reason for me to blog is to promote a Christian point of view on issues of the day, pointing people to the revelation of God as the source for truth on such matters. Although, as mentioned in my previous post Gimme Some Truth, it isn't very easy to talk about truth these days because our postmodern way of thinking doesn't recognize or define truth in the way it has been previously defined. Still by writing on such topics I can hopefully show the flaws, and ultimately the futility, of such thinking, and perhaps influence a few towards truth that is substantial and meaningful and makes a real difference to their lives.

Another reason to blog is that it helps keep me honest. Hey, I don't want to be found to be among the hypocrites by saying one thing in my blog, but living in a different way. I'm sure pastors who preach sermons and others who teach can relate to this point.

Now, is there a part of me who wants to blog so that people will read my posts and think, "My, what a clever fellow!", or "My gosh, what insight this man has!"? Yes, I admit I'm guilty of such base motivations. But, I also find within myself the artistic impulse to express myself-- which comes out in my music and songwriting as well as in my blogging. I don't think that this impulse is evil. On the contrary, I think it is God-given. But like all of God's gifts, this impulse should be submitted to Him, so that it functions properly in my life, serving Him rather than myself.

So I'm hoping, as "fluffy" and lightweight as the practice of blogging sometimes feels to me, that in the end, it will not have been a waste of time, that it won't be burnt up on Judgment Day as a mere work of my flesh. So that's one more reason why I hope to make this blog more effective in reaching people, which necessitates that I will likely have to learn a lot more about the technical aspects of a good webpage, including good design, good coding, using links, optimization for search engines, etc.

[As an aside, I have been working on this kind of stuff lately. For example, I had added a whole bunch of links to my site, which I picked up lock, stock and barrel from Adrian Warnock's UK Evangelical Blog. I have decided to delete all but a few of the links, because I'm quite sure that there's some I wouldn't necessarily want to endorse, though they may be well-read and popular. Mr. Warnock's philosophy on this expressed on his own site is that he doesn't have time to visit all the sites he lists, and that even if he lists sites he wouldn't endorse theologically or otherwise, listing them may create worthwhile points of dialogue (an interesting thought to consider). I think what I'll do is add sites as I visit them, which I can do with just a click].

2nd aside:
[I don't know about you, but a lot of blogs annoy me! I mean I don't know what's going on when I visit them. They seem entirely esoteric, full of knowing insider references that make me feel like I'm not "in the know". Also, there's so many visual distractions at many blogs--you just don't know where to look. I guess these are blogging trends, since many blogs seem to have these characteristics. Anyway, I hope I can keep my blog simple and clear, though I would like to add more options to my blog/website in the future, such as links to my music.]

Could blogging become a source of income, could it be a paying vocation for me someday? Perhaps-- this too will require research and prayer. But for now, I'm just striving to be a faithful blogger, who writes intelligently and in a way that honors God.

Gimme Some Truth

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

John Lennon, from the song "Gimme Some Truth"

A recent book by reporter Dave Shifflett (Exodus: Why Americans are Fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity) chronicles the exodus of Christians from liberal denominations and into conservative ones. The reason for this exodus, he explains, is that "Most people go to church to get something they cannot get elsewhere. This consuming public--people who already believe, or who are attempting to believe, who want their children to believe--go to church to learn about the mysterious Truth on which the Christian religion is built. They want the Good News, not the minister's political views or intellectual coaching. The latter creates sprawling vacancies in the pews. Indeed, those empty pews can be considered the earthly reward for abandoning heaven, traditionally understood."

If Shifflett is right in his analysis, and I believe he is, there is a hunger among many to find answers-- truth-- in a world that is increasingly violent, chaotic and seemingly devoid of principle. With the identity of "Deep Throat" revealed recently, we are reminded of the political spectacle of Watergate and the changes in the social and political landscape that followed in its wake. Post-Watergate, we have lived in an age extremely suspicious of power and authority, an age that doubts that any one group, be it church, political party or the media, can be trusted to give us the Truth.

This cynicism has been reflected in the way media and the arts have been relentless in presenting stories of moral failure, with exposes of failed preachers, dirty politicians, and drug-addicted superstars. Few today are lifted up as heroes or examples to follow, and the public image of even those few considered recent American heroes, men like John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, have been tarnished by many reports of their pecadillos.

What I think many today want to know is, "Can anyone be trusted?" Is there a politician that we can say is a good man, who isn't covering up some dark secret? Is there a genuine religious leader we can look up to with confidence? Is there a sports star or athlete who isn't just out for himself, who plays for love of the game?

Yes, there are men and women in these arenas who live with integrity and pursue their vocations honorably. But for the most part, we hear more about moral failures-- athletes who take steroids or cocaine, actors who get into repeated fights, adulterous preachers and lying politicians. It's almost as if there is an expectation that secretly everyone is not really what he or she claims to be-- that no one is good (but then again, it's not really their fault)!

Well it is true that not one of us is good-- the Bible teaches that "there is no one who does good, not even one" (Psalm 14:3). This simply means that every human being experiences moral failure, that is the result, not primarily of our parent's failures or a lousy social environment, but mainly because of flawed human nature. On the other hand, the Bible also teaches that Jesus challenges all to "love our neighbor as ourself" and that this means in part that we ought to look for the best in others. "Love is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance (1 Corinthians 6-7).

So we're a bit confused. We hunger for truth, but we're not sure it can be found anywhere, whether in people or institutions. We long for answers to the timeless questions of life-- who am I, where did I come from, where am I going, why is there suffering, etc., but we're not so sure there are clear answers. Is it presumptous for Christians to say that we have found the Answer? After all, what is true for one person may not be true for another, right? Might it not be better to make a commitment to seek for knowledge, rather than "Answers", making adjustments as we get new information, and stay faithful on the never-ending path of seeking?

This sounds perhaps democratic, an enlightened way to live. If all paths ultimately lead to the same destination, why not glean from the wisdom of all kinds of traditions, and connect all my understandings together in a way that makes most sense to me? It sounds great, but there's a problem with this approach--it makes me the arbiter of truth. I pick and choose this idea or that principle, put it all together and pronounce-- "this is my truth." But is there any objectivity to this process? How can I be sure that the things I have chosen to believe are not merely ideas with personal appeal to me, but are indeed True? One might object, what does it matter, so long as it works for that individual?

Well, if you're one who says that, then at least be honest-- you're not looking for Truth, you're looking for something that suits you. Because truth, by definition, stands over against what is false. But if truth is only what happens to suit a person, then it isn't truth, it's just preference.

Truth is universal; it applies to all, it stands over against the false. If I were to assert for example, that John Lennon was not murdered by gunshots in 1980--that in fact, tired of touring and fame, he secretly left the Beatles back in 1967, married his lover Brian Epstein, staged Brian's death and had a look-a-like take over for him in the Beatles and marry Yoko-- you would say that's preposterous! Because there are facts known about Lennon, who was in the public eye for many years, and these simply do not bear out such an insane story. Yes, I agree, this story is not true.

But today people want to say truth is relative and subjective and can't be found out through observation. I say hogwash. We all live as if truth is something that can be ascertained--albeit imperfectly, but nevertheless we do our best to find it, because we believe it's out there. For example, what is the truth in the Michael Jackson case? Did he molest those children or not? Well, I don't know because I wasn't there (now if I had been I would know the truth, right?) but that's what the trial was all about. Arguments and evidence were presented by those who assert that he did molest a particular child, and counter-arguments and evidence presented by those who believe and assert that he didn't. A jury then decided the "truth", based on the presented evidence. Now, has the real truth been revealed? Jackson was acquitted on all counts, but even some members of the jury who voted him innocent now say that they believe that he has molested children, just not the child who was accusing him in this case.

I would argue that most everyone believes that the truth of what really happened in the Michael Jackson case exists, it's just that it's pretty hard to determine, what with all the expert lawyers, and all the media coverage and the determination of many to hide it. But if someone had set up, unbeknownst to Jackson, video cameras that recorded virtually everything that had taken place in his home, his innocence or guilt could probably be proven conclusively in this matter (that is, if such evidence was allowed to presented in court).

My point is that we yearn for truth and instinctively know that it means more than just personal opinion, but a part of us is also afraid of the Truth. We don't want to be nailed down, to be committed to accepting truth, for fear of then having to live according to the truth that has been revealed. The truth is often unpleasant.

And yet, like the many who are returning to the conservative churches that offer the revealed Truth of the Word of God, people are drawn to someone who can offer them definite answers to the burning questions of life. We want something or someone that offers hope and meaning to live by.

Those who are flocking to the churches are on the right track, because the message of salvation that is in the gospel may be found there. Still the follower of Christ must remember that truth is more than merely facts and principles and abstractions; Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ. And if we want to become men and women who can reveal truth to others, we must become more and more like Him. He lived what he preached, He spoke of things He knew, He modeled the Way of Truth for us.

We ought not to be "hypocrites" like John Lennon's song condemns, or like the Pharisees of old, but rather men and women for whom truth is a way of life, a means of expressing the love that God generates within us. And we ought to be humble, knowing that without the gracious light of truth that came through Jesus Christ, we would have no real understanding. The Bible says that the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came to us by Jesus Christ. So as we share truth, let's do it with all the grace that God gives.

And if you are not a follower of Christ, but you hunger for truth, consider that Jesus said of Himself "I am the Way, and the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father, except through me"? Doesn't sound very democratic, does it? But what if it's true?...

Intelligent Design Is Common Sense

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans 1:18-21

These days there is much controversy being reported by the media because a number of American school districts are challenging the school science curriculum that teaches only evolution. Some want to teach theories such as intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution, which according to its critics (and even some of its proponents) is a theory with serious flaws. Critics of this proposal say that intelligent design is not science; if taught at all, it should only be included as part of a humanities curriculum.

Intelligent design is not the same as creationism. Intelligent design is a scientific theory that posits that the complex nature of life and of the universe is best explained as the result of a genuine design, rather than by the random or spontaneous processes speculated by evolutionary theory. Although some who believe in intelligent design are theists, the theory itself does not attempt an explanation of the source of the design, only that there is a design.

I am no scientist. But I like to think that I have some common sense. And intelligent design makes more sense to me as an explanation of how this world came to be than evolution. Just as the passage above states, we see all around us evidence of a very intricate and complex universe, in which all parts fit together just so, in order for life as we know it to exist. That such a universe could have come into being as a result of random, un-designed events seems to me preposterous and absurd. It's like saying my car spontaneously manufactured itself and appeared in the driveway.

It seems to me that the reason evolution has such a stronghold on the minds of academia, in spite of the common-sense objection I have just stated, and despite the fact that the scientific evidence simply has not borne out the validity of the theory, must be due to a profound desire (on the part of those who hold the theory) for it to be found true. Why? Simply because if evolution is true (at least the atheistic brand commonly known and taught in American high schools and colleges) then God is removed from the picture-- and if there is no God, there is no claim of God on my life and I can live as I like.

I believe that Paul summed it up quite well: men unrighteously suppress the obvious truth that we live in an intelligently designed universe, which in turn means that there is an Intelligent Designer. They do this because they do not want to honor God nor thank Him; they want to live their lives just as they please, and by suppressing the knowledge of God they attempt to do so.

Unfortunately the result is only to bring upon themselves the wrath of God, since He designed the universe to function in a certain way which humanity only ignores at its own peril.

For deeper exploration of this topic, check out these links:

Design for Living- Article on Intelligent Design by one of its leading proponents, Michael Behe

Chuck Colson’s Ten Questions about Origins

More Than Coincidence. Positive Arguments for Creation By Chuck Colson

The Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center

An Evening With Pastor David Cho

Last night a men’s prayer group I’m part of attended a revival service at which the main speaker was Pastor David Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world’s largest church (750,000 members in Seoul, South Korea) and author of hundreds of books, both in Chinese and English, including “The Fourth Dimension”.

I have to admit I went to hear Cho with a certain amount of skepticism, not because I’m not open to signs and wonders (which are supposed to occur often during his services)-- after all, I attend a charismatic church where people regularly speak in tongues and pray for "signs and wonders". But I was concerned by what I had read on the Internet about Cho, especially concerning his theology.

It had been years since I read “The Fourth Dimension”, but I remember when reading it thinking that the visualization techniques Cho suggests might be misdirected towards the pursuit of goals not necessarily God’s will for one’s life. For example, he told a story of a woman he counseled that had been praying for over 10 years for a husband, but had not received an answer. Cho identified her problem as not praying specifically. He took out paper and pen and interviewed the woman, asking her questions about the kind of husband she wanted and writing down her answers. Now, with a mental picture of her husband based on the characteristics she desired, he advised her to begin praying daily according to this specific vision, by faith believing that her prayers would be answered, because she was now praying specifically. Sure enough, a short time later a man visited her church fitting the description in her vision; he took an interest in her and soon after they were married.

It is a nice story, but I wondered about some of its implications. Could it be presumptuous for a believer to decide in advance what kind of outward characteristics they want in a spouse and then expect God to answer according to their desires? What if God has a person in mind for you that doesn’t match your specific vision? I noticed too that Pastor Cho asks her the specifics of what she desires in a husband, yet he asks only about outward characteristics, such as height, occupation, hobby, etc.; no questions are raised concerning the character of her future husband. Why is this? The moral the story seems to teach is that so long as I’m praying specifically it doesn’t matter what I’m praying for? Wouldn’t God be more concerned about the character of my potential spouse than about merely outward traits? Perhaps Cho takes it as a given that the woman, being a believer, would have new desires that are directed by the Lord, and therefore her specific desires and the Lords’ will would line up together. However, he doesn’t make that very clear.

The danger in Cho’s teaching about visualizing goals then, is that he doesn't always balance it with teaching about God’s sovereignty. One could easily read the example above and go away with a strategy to seek out a spouse in a way that makes my personal desires paramount, over and above what the Lord’s will might be. How do I know in advance the precise characteristics of the spouse God has in mind for me, especially in context of His sovereign plan for my life? I cannot. Certainly as a human being I will have preferences and desires, and should pray to God about these. But because the Lord sees my future and is all-wise, I should pray with an attitude of humility that leans upon Him for understanding, and trusts Him to provide for my best, rather than dictating what I think is best. Cho elsewhere does speak of our dependence upon the Holy Spirit for guidance and direction, so I think that he isn’t saying that all of our visualized goals are necessarily right to pursue, but only those imparted to us by the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I think his teaching would benefit from making that important point more clear.

Thankfully, Cho’s evening message turned out to be both God-centered and gospel-oriented. A diminutive yet charismatic presence, Cho spoke powerfully and convincingly, with many examples from his life and ministry, of the believer’s need to learn to think in a new paradigm. Although he did not title his message, it probably could have been called something like, “Living Out the New Paradigm of Faith”. He began the message by pointing out how a believer might remain stuck outside of the “promised land” that God is trying to lead him into, just as the Israelites wandered around in the desert for 40 years after the Lord delivered them from Egyptian captivity. This happens he says, because even though God brings us out of Egypt, Egypt hasn’t left our hearts. In other words, worldliness continues to exert a strong grip on our minds and in our hearts, keeping us from thinking and acting in the new way we ought.

So Cho’s first key to entering into the inheritance God has for us as believers is renewing of the mind according to” revelation knowledge”(God’s word), which enables us to think in terms of faith, rather than according to mere “sense knowledge”. This is living the God-centered life of faith, which learns to see things according to God’s word and is not limited to man’s wisdom or ingenuity in response to solving life’s problems.

Cho taught on themes familiar to those who have read his books. He spoke of knowing, through the revelation gained by much study and meditation in God’s word, our true identity as believers. He showed how our new identity is directly linked with what Jesus did for us on the cross, explaining that on the Cross, the old person we were died when Jesus died, and the new person we have become arose when Jesus arose. He said that Jesus became a curse, in order to remove the curse of the law (sin) that was destroying our lives, quoting Galatians 3:13.

Cho mentioned Abraham as an example of someone who was able to possess the promise of God because he was first shown it— God had him look and count the stars above and also look all around him at the land he was treading upon. These actions of seeing according to the vision God has for our lives is key to realizing that vision: “Seeing precedes possession”, said Cho.

Cho also described poverty as a curse, and spoke of how envisioning a successful outcome in business will bring about the power of God working in your situation, bringing supernatural wisdom and vision (he used the story of Jacob with Laban’s sheep as an example to illustrate his point).

But as I mentioned above, there are times that Cho is so enthusiastic about emphasizing our potential as believers to act on our dreams and goals that it is possible that some of his listeners may receive a lopsided message. For example, although I agree that poverty and sickness are curses, I think too that there are seasons in which God may sometimes permit these to touch us. The Apostle Paul was afflicted by difficult trials and difficulties in his ministry, including at times, lack of money or physical ailments. Yet certainly this was not a sign that Paul was no longer in God’s will. Rather, the apostle states that through such experiences he had learned the secret of contentment. "Not that I was ever in need, for I have learned how to get along happily whether I have much or little. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little" Phippians 4: 11-12 (NLT).

I agree with Cho that our God is very good and certainly I want to grow my faith to receive all that God has for me. Yet I am troubled by teaching that seems to imply that all Christians must become rich, or that we can never ever be sick. Again I think balance is needed in teaching abot these things, because the Scriptures are balanced in their teaching about money and health. Regarding money for example, there are numerous warnings about the danger of money and possessions becoming an idol that distracts us away from serving the Lord and the kingdom priorities– at the same time, money and resources are seen to be desirable and good when used rightly. My impression is that Cho’s ministry uses its vast resources towards ends which fulfill the Great Commission of making disciples and being salt and light in the community. This is wonderful. At the same time, we must always be on guard against materialism and greed creeping into the ministry. Some ministries that begin with right motives are corrupted by the allure of worldly wealth. And since the marketing and selling of all kinds of Christian merchandise these days is something that even turns me off, as a believer, I can imagine how it might be really distasteful to those outside of the church. Many are looking for justification to reject Christ and His teaching. Therefore I think that we ought to be very, very watchful in this area for two reasons. One reason that vigilance is needed is so that we are not seduced by the materialistic spirit of this age. Another reason is to guard our witness to the world from being compromised by appearing to be more about profit and greed than about the love of Jesus. We ought not to give any unbelievers any ammunition to be able to say that the way of Christ is somehow phony.

I am happy to say that overall I was encouraged and inspired by Pastor Cho to believe that God will do incredible things in us and through us as we are seeking to do His work on earth and submitted in obedience to His word.

Imagine- A New Heaven and a New Earth

It is hard to believe that 30 years have already passed since the Beatles disbanded and went their separate ways, and John Lennon and his wife Yoko went off and staged their famous "Bed-In" for peace. I was only a young child in the decade of the 60's, but the social landscape today seems so far removed from that era's idealism. The 1960's had been a time of great unrest and turmoil-- the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bob Dylan, The Beatles, hippies, drugs, "free love", and the Vietnam War were just a few of the personalities and phenomena making up the volatile social scene. But with all the unrest and violence that existed, there was yet a feeling, reflected in the arts and especially the music of the time, and perhaps bolstered by the elections of youthful and different kinds of leaders, like President John F. Kennedy and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, that the love and peace movement would somehow triumph over the evils of the "establishment". If people could somehow find the love and peace existing within themselves, and want them badly enough, they could foment a social revolution that would stop the evils promulgated by the "establishment"--the wars manufactured out of greed, the repressiveness of traditional societal roles, racism towards the Negro, intolerance of alternate sexual expression, and conformity to the status quo. The ideal of seeking harmony through "free love"-- the "Make Love, Not War" attitude--appealed to a young generation that, behind the facade of happiness of the previous generation, saw what it thought was hypocrisy, prejudice, hate and materialism.

I recently watched a documentary entitled "John & Yoko's Year of Peace" (2000), which follows John and Yoko's activities in the year 1969. The Beatles were soon to break up when John Lennon met Yoko Ono, an avant-garde Japanese artist, at one of her exhibitions, fell in love and married her. Like star couples of today, John and Yoko were major celebrities whose every move was being reported by the media. So Lennon and his new wife, spurred on by the thrill of honeymoon love and by their idealism, ingeniously decided to turn the media circus to their advantage and promote the cause of peace.

Watching footage of the Lennons in various interviews, including the famous "Bed-In" (the honeymoon rendezvous in which John and Yoko invited reporters to interview them while in bed to talk about peace), I was struck by the seriousness of their demeanor, yet also their light-heartedness and humor. Lennon is articulate and intelligent, gentle but also forthright when expressing his views. Yoko is serene and less vocal, but also shares her views with dignity and conviction. They talk about the cause of peace in the world with the optimism and sincerity of true believers. They seem convinced that their voice, being just one of many, will help spur on many like-minded people to speak out for peace, to become an effective worldwide movement. As their famous slogan plastered all over the world at the time declared: "War is over, if you want it".

Alas, we know today that Lennon's peace crusade, admired by some and vilified by others, did not mushroom into the powerful force for peace that they had hoped for. Conservatives shunned them, viewing the Lennons as foolish and naive at best, arrogant and dangerous at worst. Liberals sympathetic to their cause may have been too busy pursuing other agendas to join in mass, although the documentary shows that the Lennon's campaign did generate a certain momentum, which included a concert. Like Woodstock, the Lennon's year of peace seemed to be of the moment, generating a buzz that dissipated quickly. Yet the social and sexual revolution of the 60's did result in a certain measure of envisioned changes, including improved treatment of black people in America, better opportunities for women in the marketplace and new trends in politics, media and the arts that began then and continue to unfold today. Depending on your worldview, these changes have been either good or bad (or somehwere in-between) for America.

As a person of artistic temperament and an admirer of the songwriting genius of Lennon, I was, in my pre-Christian days, quite drawn to his message of love and peace. I would say that I'm still of course, sympathetic to his dream of a world where love and peace triumph over hate and war. Yet I also believe that Lennon was short-sighted in that, rejecting the Christian explanation of reality, he necessarily moved into a position that required him to believe that the innate "goodness" of humanity was a real thing, and if tapped into would become a potent force for radical change. In his song Imagine, Lennon dreamed a utopian world where, through the power of vision, humanity would reject all the illusions that separate us from one another-- "Imagine there's no... "Heaven", "hell", "religion", "countries", "possessions". Detached from all these divisive influences, these constructs of man, mankind's beauty would shine forth, enabling people to live "life in peace" and "be as one".

But world events since 1969 reveal, just as the world events did before 1969, that mankind is plagued by evils that have been part of human interaction since the dawn of history. The idea that simply getting enough people to wish for (or strongly desire) a world full of peace will bring it into reality has a certain easy charm. But can we continue to stare into the face of evil that we see all around us worldwide--the genocide, the rape, the murder, the starvation, the injustice-- all resulting from our inhumane treatment of one another--and believe that innate goodness will win the day?

Or is the answer to be found in rational thinking and education? If we train our children to be "tolerant", to view history according to our conceptions, and to think properly, will it prevent them from becoming criminals, of either the blue or white-collar variety, and instead becoming great and caring citizens?

Today across America we find among our young people rampant cheating, kids that start experimenting with sex at ever earlier ages, even kids killing other kids at school, sometimes for their iPods or sometimes just because a kid snaps and goes on a killing spree. We have heard of very young children beating each other brutally. Of course, there are many wonderful children in this country who don't steal, don't cheat and do become productive members of society. Yet it seems the negative patterns we see here in America are also present in Europe and in other "developed" nations.

The evils perpetrated by the adult world is their model. And this is not even taking into account all the horrific crimes perpetuated globally by terrorists, suicide bombers, and regimes that can only be properly described as evil in how they treat their people. With all of this wickedness surrounding us, are we naive enough to think that simply wishing for peace will make it come?

I applaud the fact John Lennon used his celebrity to advance a worthy cause (when he could just have easily, with his wealth, avoided controversy), and the fact that he was willing to confront hypocrisy and evil even as he sought to be a peacemaker; nevertheless it can be seen that his dream of peace was ultimately ineffective, because it did not properly diagnose the problem: the evil at the heart of mankind.

This is not a pleasant or politically correct message, though it is an accurate one. The Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9, "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" There is no time to be politically correct. Jesus may come back at any moment. The message of Jesus Christ is that we are in desperate need, and if we recognize our need, Jesus will fill it. What is our need? Our need is to know Jesus in order to be saved from our sins, which otherwise will destroy us forever.

Jesus spoke often of the reality of His kindgom and of the beautiful nature of it. It is a spiritual kingdom, one that is not of this present world, yet one that will someday physically reign over a new Heaven and a new Earth. All who are part of it will also be new people, with hearts (our spiritual center) and bodies completely made whole. And yes, peace will reign there. Yet His message to all who seek to enter this kingdom is "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

Why I Didn't Burn My Beatles Records

I don't remember what Beatle song was the first I ever listened to, but I do remember the first Beatle albums I listened to-- "The Beatles' Second Album" and "Something New"-- and the incredible thrill I experienced hearing them for the first time.

I was a very musical child. Even as a baby, my mother says I used to always stop everything I was doing and sit mesmerized the moment there was music playing. Some people are tuned in to visual beauty, some to words, some to abstract concepts; growing up, I seemed at times to be attuned to all of these, but music especially brought me joy and excitement.

My parents were great lovers of music, and we had all kinds playing in our home, from the Tijuana Brass to the Cowsills to the Sound of Music to Simon and Garfunkel and more. It was a wonderful time in popular music; a time when what was commercially appreciated also seemed to have quality, originality and creativity behind it. Not that everything one heard on the radio was great, but it was a time when strong melody, craftsmanship and creativity were abounding.

Unfortunately the demise of popular music has been steady, and it correlates with a culture that has become increasingly superficial and shallow. The triumph of vulgarity and sensuality in popular music has been far-reaching, especially the travesty that is hip-hop and rap music. I know it isn't politically correct to say so, but that genre of music generally is bad.

To me, it is almost non-music, spoken words shouted over repetitive, hypnotic rhythm tracks. Even in the backing tracks there is often little originality, as they are many times nothing but re-worked samples-- a riff or a bass line-- lifted from previous hits. Yes, there is a kind of talent or skill involved in the making of rap or hip-hop. Some of its stars have talent with words; some are engaging performers. But I feel that the true beauty of music is in melody, and rap and hip/hop major on rhythm and rhyme at the expense of tunefulness.

But worse than the missing melodies of rap/hip hop are the banal lyrics, which it seems aim to provoke and offend. The impression I have when I hear most rap/hop-hop is of insecure singers boasting about themselves in angry tirades, ranting about how their sexual prowess, their rich lifestyle and their ability to rap makes them so much better than the next rapper. Who cares?

By contrast there have been periods in American popular music when lyrics of popular tunes were urbane, witty and well crafted. There was true artistry behind the lyrics of such greats as Cole Porter, Ira Gershwin, and Oscar Hammerstein. Perhaps some of the rappers have talent on this level, but in my opinion it is talent utterly wasted in their chosen genre.

But getting back to the Beatles. It's hard to believe, given the almost quaint words and sounds of the early Beatles, that when they first appeared on the American scene, they were considered to pose as great a danger to morals and to the culture as today's vulgarians. For in listening to the music of the early Beatles, one encounters a joy and sweetness that is completely absent from today's pop music. That is not to say that either they, or their music, were innocent. Those who have read biographies of the Beatles have learned that they were a pretty wild bunch, as far as their private lifestyles were concerned. But in their music the Beatles used their gift as songwriters to convey the exuberance of romantic love in a fresh way; yet it was not at all crass. Early hits like "Please Please Me", "She Loves You", and "I Want to Hold Your Hand" demonstrated their gift for memorable, catchy melodies, interesting musical arrangements, great harmony singing and an original way of putting all of these elements together. In their live performances, one could sense their pleasure in performing and in the music itself. They dressed in elegant, matching Pierre Cardin suits; they humbly bowed before the audience at the end of their performances.

Contrast this with the self-exalting swagger of today's performers, who pounce upon the stage and try to impress you with their incredible "badness" through raunchy dance moves and outrageous clothes (or lack of them). Many of these performers' costumes make them literally look like clowns, yet they don't seem aware of it.

Just as the Beatles were making their mark on America, the always outspoken John Lennon made an offhand remark to a reporter that the Beatles were now "bigger than Jesus". What he meant simply as an honest observation about their popularity among youth, many took offense at as the arrogant remarks of a pagan. Soon, apparently at the instigation of zealous pastors and Christian parents, Beatle records were being burnt at bonfires by the same young fans who had previously rushed to buy them. Now I suppose one might argue that if the Beatles were anti-Christian then shouldn't Christians not listen to them? Certainly, their music reflected the spirit of the times rather than a Christian approach to life.

Well, if a fellow Christian told me that they had decided that the Beatles were not good listening material for them because of their conscience, I would certainly support their choice. At the same time, I think that so few musicians that have come along that possess the musical genius of the Beatles, and it would certainly be a shame to not listen to them anymore. Besides, I believe that as non-Christian bands go, the Beatles were among those whose music was more spiritually oriented than others, with themes of seeking love, peace and understanding among humanity prevalent in their body of work.

I can appreciate the beauty and the talent in the songs of the Beatles, while at the same time, not seeking identity as a human being in their music or in following them as a band. And believing that all true talent and creativity is a gift from God, I can even glorify God for the music of the Beatles. What I celebrate is not those moments when their lyrics promoted Eastern religion or seemingly advocated the use of drugs.

But I celebrate the amazing beauty in the melodies and lyrics of songs like "Yesterday", "If I Fell", "Golden Slumbers", "For No One", and so many others. I celebrate the artistic impulse that inspired and challenged the Beatles to always try to improve, stretch and grow in their music. I celebrate their amazing instincts and innovations as recording artists, leading them from simple collections of songs on their early albums to increasingly sophisticated songs presented on the first-ever "concept" album (Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band). I celebrate the exquisite three-part harmonies of "Nowhere Man", "Because" or "This Boy"; the wild inventiveness of "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "I Am the Walrus"; the wonderful energy, humor and camaraderie that the band exhibited when playing together, the idealism and depth of emotion in songs like "Hey Jude", "All You Need is Love" or "Let It Be".

I credit the Beatles with inspiring me with a view that popular music could be a vehicle for touching many people with the joy of music. That one could be an excellent musician, taking the craft of songwriting seriously as a professional, but aim for the higher goal of artistic success, above and beyond mere commercial success. The kind of a songwriter I am today owes much to their influence.

That Old Feeling: Meet the Beatles-great article on the Beatles by Richard Corliss of Time

The Beatles by Kurt Loder-Time100 Essay

Getting to Know The Real You

"So, what do you do?"
"Tell me about yourself"
"What's your story?"

When someone is trying to get to know you, these are common questions you might be asked, especially here in America. You might also be asked, "What college did you go to? What was your major? What do you look like? (maybe you're getting to know them via Internet)... Do you 'work out'? What are your hobbies? What kind of music, books, movies do you like? What are your dreams? What are your goals for the next five years? Are you married or single? Have you ever 'been in love?' Are you a Republican or Democrat, religious or atheist, conservative or liberal?", and so on.

A lot of these questions might yield worthwhile information, although if someone asks you all of them at the same time your head is liable to explode. Some of these questions probably reveal more about the real you than others. But then again, who is the real you?

When someone asks me, "Who are you?", would I be most inclined to:

a) tell them what I've done
b) tell them where I've been
c) tell them what I hope to accomplish
d) salute and give them my name, rank and Social Security number
e) hurl myself to the floor in a fake epileptic fit, complete with foaming of the mouth
f) run away, flapping my arms frantically and shrieking "leave me alone!!!"
d) all of the above
e) none of the above?

Is there an easy, unobtrusive way for someone to find out who I am? Maybe if they just had a sly look at my CV or resume? I dont think that would tell them very much about the REAL me... Perhaps if I send you my un-official, personal resume, 20 pages long, listing jobs held, college major, chronological bio (my story), interests, hobbies, passions, goals, with a nice glossy head shot of my handsome smiling face, you'll get a better idea of who I am (I'll send it to you for $12 US funds--I accept all major credit cards and PayPal). Or you could visit my web site (oh wait, that's just a starter page). Maybe it would be helpful if I also sent you a video with crucial footage of Me-- Me graduate college, Me get married, Me open all my birthday presents (video is only an additional $10, with purchase of the resume bundle). If you shelled out these nominal fees, read the resume/bio, went to the website, and watched the video, would you know me then?

Of course, the answer is no. Certainly you might now understand many things about me (or perhaps you'd be quite perplexed), but unless you and I had interacted somehow, you still wouldn't really know me, would you? To really know someone, we must be acquainted with something beyond the mere facts of their lives, even if those facts have been conveyed to us in great detail by the person themselves. We need finally, to talk and interact with the individual face-to-face, in order to experience their essence and come into contact with the living soul that resides underneath all the outward trappings.

[At this point I must apologize because this began as quite a serious post but unfortunately Mr. Silly keeps trying to take over. Down boy! Down! OK, now where were we? Oh yes].

My point is that you won't know me by watching my videos (actually I don't have any yet anyway), reading my blog, listening to my music or even, should you lead such a charmed life, by "hanging out" (Americanese, meaning "spend informal time with") with me. Of course, of all of these options for getting to know someone, spending much time together is the most informative, if your purpose is to really know someone. Yet even then, there is an essential, mysterious part of me that you'll never know. Why, you may ask-- am I the "Marlboro Man"--macho and aloof? No, not at all. What I'm saying is that there something mysterious about us all, as human beings.

Each of us is created by a Masterful Designer who has intricately woven together, not only the physical, emotional and intellectual parts of our beings, but also the events of our lives, into a package that is unique, meaningful and beautiful. And this complex package that is each one of us cannot be reduced to our resume plus our biography plus our accomplishments. All of these things may reflect a portion of who we are, but they don't and cannot completely define us.

What role does Christian faith play in all of this? I'll comment on that in a moment. But first note that the world system tends to try to define us superficially--by some outward aspect of ourselves. Perhaps you have seen yourself as a clever wit, or perhaps, as an innocent; maybe you view yourself as sophisticated and with above-average intelligence. Maybe you are just overflowing with charisma and sex appeal. Perhaps you pride yourself on being a man or woman of humility. We tend to forge an identity out of our natural strengths, and define and measure these strengths according to prevailing cultural, and highly subjective, standards. For example, one person thinks it's crucial to be extremely physically fit (because they have good genes, enjoy exercise and have the good fortune of health); the next treasures inner spiritual growth (because they happen to have a reflective temperament, like smoking more than running, and enjoy spending time in meditation).

I believe that the role Christian faith plays in all of this is that it says, "Wait a minute, you are not just what you do or what you accomplish; you are made in the image of God, you were uniquely fashioned by Him, for a divine purpose." We have been granted the dignity and freedom to make choices that effect our ultimate destiny, yet many of the things that help define who I am are simply given, not chosen. For example, I did not choose where and when to be born, who my parents are, what sex I would be, what my natural strengths and weaknesses are. God has chosen all of these things for me.

Yet what I now choose to do with all these givens is vitally important. Will I acknowledge that there is a Maker? Will I make the most of my talents and gifts, in service to mankind? Do I face my faults honestly, acknowledging the sinfulness I find in myself and turning to the Maker's solution for this problem, His Son, Jesus Christ? It is making these types of choices, I believe, that help us progressively forge a truly human identity, one that reflects the Maker's design and His image in us.

Papal Matters

A new pope has been selected, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. He will become the 265th Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. Many liberals are alarmed by the Pontiff’'s conservative positions on abortion, birth control and the ordination of women, which are very much in line with those of his predecessor, John Paul II. Such positions, they say, will prevent the church from modernizing and becoming more relevant to today’'s concerns. Others applaud the selection of Cardinal Ratzinger as a man who will carry on the work begun by his predecessor. Until now, I hadn'’t commented upon the passing of John Paul II, nor the fanfare that surrounded his funeral and the selection of a new Pope; I was simply taking it all in.

As a non-Catholic, I have to admit that the huge outpouring of grief for the Pope, and the tremendous world turnout for his funeral, surprised me. I didn’'t realize what an important religious figure the Pope is—, or that the Roman Catholic Church has over a billion people members! Pope John II seemed to me a very decent, sincere man with strong conservative beliefs and the backbone to proclaim them. He possessed a fine mind, capable of writing scholarly theological works and conversing in eight languages. Many have commented on his personal charisma, which he apparently continued to exude to his very last days, despite the ravages of old age and Parkinson’s disease. Still, it was difficult to understand all the attention being paid to his passing by the liberal media, except that (as pointed out by Gene Edward Veith in WORLD) 1- this was an extraordinarily huge event, the biggest in television history, that was watched by as many as a billion viewers; and 2- in many ways it was the kind of event, visually speaking (complete with "celebrity" at the center of it) that television does well.

I don't have anything truly profound to say about John Paul II, since I write from the perspective of an outsider regarding all things popish. But I am puzzled, I must say, by the inconsistency displayed by those who seem to venerate him. The Pope took a hard-line stance on issues that many, if not most Catholics, seemed to disagree with him on. He did not think priests should marry; he upheld the Church's traditional stance on birth control; and also upheld the Church's positiona against women priests and gay marriage. American Catholics especially have largely ignored, disobeyed or criticized the Church on these issues. What does it mean when someone says they belong to the Roman Catholic Church, yet chooses to disagree with and even challenge the orders of the one whom they claim is infallible when it comes to official Church teaching/pronouncements on such matters? What love and respect for him is demonstrated by this disobedience? And since the newly appointed Pope is known for having the same immovable convictions regarding these modern concerns, such disparity may well continue.

Yet just as there are both serious and non-committal Christians within the Protestant Church, so there are casual Roman Catholics and those who do not display the inconsistency described above but rather submit themselves to the teachings of the Pope in all things.

I am thankful that John Paul II valiantly stood up for crucial Christian beliefs, including the sanctity of life, the protection of individual liberty (such as the freedom to worship), and the obligations we have towards the poor, among other things. His was a voice that was influential and eloquent in defense of Christian truth in these areas. He dared to criticize such men as Fidel Castro and Mikhail Gorbachev. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholicism that the Pope represented is a religion founded upon many erroneous interpretations of Scripture and on the traditions of men. And the question that comes to my mind is: with so much error abounding in their Church, does a sincere Roman Catholic have opportunity to connect with the real Jesus? I don’t know. I sincerely hope so.

Some will ask, "Who are you to say you know that Roman Catholicism is in error?" I don't claim to be the authority; I only read the Bible and interpret it according to the light the Holy Spirit gives me, and look for help in this from my teachers (my pastor and other experienced Christians). Yet I believe that anyone seeking the truth from the Word of God will find it, because it is God's intention that His truth be revealed. I'm not saying that everything in Roman Catholic teaching is wrong. Their beliefs about the Bible, Jesus and many other issues are biblical, and such beliefs were well-expounded by the Pope.

It is not my intention here to launch into critique of the theology of the Roman Catholic Church. But it is important to note that mixed in with the truths that are biblical, the Roman Catholic Church has included numerous, serious errors. And this is critical because the millions of people drawn to Roman Catholicism and the Pope seem to be looking for a true religious experience, but in Roman Catholicism, they find these false ideas mixed in with truth. Again, Gene Edward Veith describes their quest in his excellent examination:

"... a revitalized Roman Catholicism may prove tough competition for evangelicals. The casualties of postmodernism yearn for "spirituality." Unlike modernists, they are open to the past. They do not prize abstract, rational arguments and formulas. Rather, they are attracted to mystery, mysticism, and the supernatural made tangible."

I think that there is nothing wrong with mystery, mysticism or the supernatural --all these are an authentic part of genuine Christian experience. I seek a deeper connection with God and long for more spiritual power to be expressed in my life and in the life of the church (see my previous post Bearing Fruit for the Kingdom) . Yet such experiences, without being anchored in a truly biblical worldview, will lead people into false religion.

May the Lord speak to us through His Word and by the Spirit lead us into all truth.

John Paul II- The Man and His Legacy

The Catholic moment, Gene Edward Veith's WORLD magazine article

Pros and Cons- Conservatism in a new Pope is both a positive and a negative, Joel Belz in WORLD

The Bible vs Catholic Tradition

Not Just "Preaching to the Choir"

I note with enthusiasm and a bit of trepidation that I had the most visitors ever to my site yesterday, for reasons completely undeterminable (by me at least). In light of this unexpected development, I thought I would like to say something to any of my visitors here. And that is, I'm not just “preaching to the choir”.

What I mean is, yes, I do without apology express a consistent Christian point of view here, but I don’t have everything completely figured out regarding my politics, my views on the world, or even my theology. I think that becoming a Christian gives one an excellent foundation for pursuing truth in all these arenas, because one is provided an explanation of the way things are; a view of reality. But I am not only speaking to Christians. I hope that what is written here will benefit anyone.

I did not just accept the doctrines of Christianity wholesale, without examining them and confirming their validity, by observation and thought, over the years. People often think that Christianity is all about faith, but by this they mean that one suspends rationality so they can believe fantastical things and be comforted with the notion that God likes them personally and that they will get to heaven someday. I suppose there are some who do believe in Christ that way, but I would say that unless one has thought through their faith, such a conversion is not likely to last past the first blows of the storms of reality. In other words, you need real faith for a real world that has real problems.

As Elisabeth Eliot once said, we could use a few heroes today. A hero doesn’t have to be someone with extraordinary gifts or valor, but he or she is must possess integrity of character, manifested by perseverance in being true to what they believe, even in the face of opposition. But beyond this, a hero also believes in the right things. One can give their life to a cause consistently, passionately and determinedly, yet find out on the other side of eternity that they wasted their time.

Hitler was certainly driven, but his cause was evil, was it not? How does one determine what is the right thing to get passionate about and to give one’s life to? Is there only one right thing?

If you watched the movie "The Passion of the Christ", you saw a man living out the last twelve hours of His life on earth, absolutely determined to fulfill the mission for which He had come. You saw a man beaten mercilessly by his enemies; the movie vividly portrays both the violence and the evil of what happened, exposing the cruelty in men’s hearts. And yet, what passion this man had! This man, who was able to look past his own physical and emotional pain and see a glorious future for humanity, endured the ordeal of crucifixion out of His love, extended even to those who inflicted this upon Him. This is beyond all natural, human comprehension. And yet, don’t we too have moments (hopefully more than fleeting) when we reach beyond ourselves and love another? In those moments, the joy of giving makes us forget to think about ourselves. How freeing and glorious is that feeling! Jesus was One who lived His entire life in this freely giving mode, on a level beyond on any other man who ever lived. And yet, He lived His life of love in His human identity, and not as His divine self. For He was our example of how to live on Earth: He lived out of His relationship with God, and from His connection to the Father, drew upon the supernatural strength that became available to Him. So in that sense, it was not easy. He was burdened with the frailty of His humanity, just as we are. He was subject to temptations, due to that human weakness, that are common to us all: pride, anger, lust, envy, doubt. Yet He was heroic in His choices– He chose to act only as His Father would have Him act; to be holy, as His Father in heaven was/is holy. And He really did choose, and in choosing was strengthened by the Spirit.

Today we have the dignity of “free will”, the God-given right to choose our actions, our beliefs and our responses. Yet I believe the God who created us has a claim on our lives. I am not here just to please myself. Of course, I can make the choice to live a life of self-indulgence, but then I am sure to find unhappiness and misery and miss out on the whole point of living. If the God of the Bible (a personal God who loves His creation) exists, He must have a claim on me. And because I believe that He exists, and has revealed most fully who He is and what He is all about through His Son Jesus, I choose to believe and follow Him. And if God came and lived life on Earth, then the kind of life He led and the choices He made and the priorities and values He had reveal to me what is really worth living for.

I hope from my explanation above that you see that there is a logic to Christian living. You may not yet be convinced that Jesus is who Christians believe Him to be. But perhaps you may understand a bit more, that if He truly is the divine One, then we all have a choice to make about Him. Yet there is also mystery here, for in certain passages the Bible teaches that faith is a gift from God. So I choose, yet I am also enabled to choose.

Jesus said simply, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." Take up His challenge and find out for yourself.

Bearing Fruit for the Kingdom

Lately I have been reading (speed-scanning is more accurate) a number of books dealing with the theme that there is power in true Christianity that often isn't utilized by the evangelical community. We evangelicals who grew up in the faith in a Western cultural context lean heavily toward an "academic" approach to spiritual growth (e.g., Bible studies, discussion, analysis, learning lots of information). This results in much "head knowledge" concerning principles for Christian living, but lives and hearts that often are only minimally impacted and transformed by the power of God.

On the other hand, the "post-modern" generation is one that seems to desire above all personal relevance as it approaches Christian living; this may not be a bad thing, since it counters the lack of application that head-knowledge is guilty of, but it seems these believers care not so much for biblical study, but want action and experiences. And of course, this presents its own dangers.

It seems to me that we must achieve a balance between these extremes, and wed disciplined study of God's word with dynamic application of its truths. If we go out and do the things the Bible is telling us to do, the truths of the Word will come alive for us, and not remain merely theoretical abstractions.

Today we have more Christian books, ministries, articles, websites and other resources than ever before, yet it seems rare to encounter Christians who walk in the same power as the early disciples.

Part of the problem I believe is that our Christianity has been influenced by our culture's individualistic approach to life. I know I personally have been guilty of making my walk with God about actualizing myself, and therefore emphasizing private devotions, reading for personal growth, and prayer only for myself and my immediate circle at the expense of obeying the call to engage with the world in a pro-active way.

Of course, much time spent with the Lord is crucial to spiritual development, and Jesus was our example in constantly getting away from the crowds to be alone with the Father, receiving guidance, instruction and simply enjoying His relationship with the Father. Yet Jesus used this time to become energized for the mission of reaching out to the world with the love of God and the saving message of the gospel. And He did so in a way that demonstrated the reality of "the kingdom of God", His constant theme in preaching. His wisdom was both profound and authoritative, and the signs and wonders He performed were living, powerful examples of His teaching about this kingdom.

So I have been excited and challenged by these books that speak on the authority and power we have in Christ, not to make our own lives full of ease, comfort and prosperity, but to do the works God has called us to do: healing, casting out demons, teaching about the kingdom, making disciples. Now as we pursue these tasks, God is very often pleased to bless us personally and materially, but such blessings are secondary to the higher blessing of service in the kingdom. Besides, in terms of material blessings, Western Christians already have so much to be thankful for.

I have been especially excited by prophetic gifts that function in the life of the church to encourage and challenge us to obedience and growth as words from the Lord can do. And as I have been learning more about the spiritual authority we can use against the demonic world, I'm gratified to know that by exercising that authority, we can bring a freedom to ourselves and to others that perhaps we did not even realize we were missing. In the area of healing, as well, although I still have questions as to why prayers for healing may go unanswered, I have heard enough testimonies to become convinced that healing is real and ought to be a vital part of kingdom ministry.

There is controversy over some of these things, with some Christians believing that spiritual gifts such as healing, tongues and prophecy are no longer valid today. Many also object to the strange "manifestations" that may take place in Pentecostal, Charismatic or Third Wave churches: things like being "slain in the Spirit" or dancing or waving banners. My thought on this is that, yes, some people may be so eager for an "experience" that they attempt to manufacture one. But on the other hand, it seems that many who are really seeking God wholeheartedly and open themselves to receive the Holy Spirit do have authentic, unpredictable encounters with the Lord. I won't venture to say that such people are not experiencing God; I will wait to see the fruit in their lives. I know that I personally welcome encounters with the Lord that help me overcome my selfishness as I see Him better and the light of His glory shines upon my darkness, canceling it out. I also believe that it’s probably because of the human tendency to think and do "in the natural" that our expectations of seeing God work often stay so low. As He performed miracles, Jesus tried to open the eyes of His disciples to see the possibilities of divine power available, not only in His ministry, but also in theirs (see Matthew 17:20, John 14:12, Mark 11:23).

But the foundation for operating in this kingdom power, and a necessary safeguard for our hearts as we begin to operate in these gifts, is cultivation of intimacy with Jesus.

“I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples" (John 15: 5-8).

P.S. Here's the titles of some the books I've been reading: "Authority to Heal" by Ken Blue, The Kingdom and the Power: Are Healing and the Spiritual Gifts Used by Jesus and the Early Church Meant for the Church Today? Gary S. Grieg, Editor, "Defeating Dark Angels" and "I Give You Authority" by Charles H. Kraft, and "Dialogue with God" by Mark Virkler. I recommend these and welcome any comments for those of you who have read them or will do so.

Brothers Judd Fallacies

As I often do, I was "Google" searching the Internet. On this particular occasion, I was doing a search for "The Screwtape Letters" (that unique novel by C.S. Lewis) and happened upon a site called BrothersJudd.com, which has a review of the novel. As a preamble to the review, Mr. Judd (I'm not sure which of the brothers is the author) testifies that he is a Christian, depite the fact that he doesn't attend church and likes to swear, along with other (presumably) un-Christian behavior. He thinks it strange that, because of such behavior, people have questioned the integrity of his claim to be Christian, since he doesn't claim to be "pious" but only Christian. Apparently he thinks being Christian means believing a certain set of propositions; he goes on to state what these beliefs are, outlining a personal creed of his Christianity.

I felt I should respond to Brother Judd's statement, lest someone who wants to know what Christianity really is should stumble upon the site, and be led seriously astray.

First I'll address his initial statement: his thought that others should not question his being Christian because he outwardly behaves in ways that seem contrary to his profession of faith. Well, Brother Judd, that is as it should be. According to Scripture, Christians do not merely believe certain doctrines--they are people who have been "born again" of the Spirit, as a result of having placed their faith (belief) in Jesus Christ. In so doing, they become, not what they once were, but "new creations", so that the "old (way of being and acting) has gone, and the new has come" (2 Corinthians 5:17). It is such changes that authenticate the claim of belief.

Now of course, even Jesus Himself was often negatively judged, according to false standards of piety (e.g., healing on the Sabbath, eating with sinners and tax collectors). Nevertheless the Bible presents clear standards of right behavior for one who calls himself Christian. James 1:26 says: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless". And there are many more such verses dealing with acceptable behavior for believers.

Now this does not at all mean that a Christian will never sin again, or that once someone becomes a Christian, there is never again a struggle with sinful behavior. On the contrary, the Bible teaches there is no instant maturity and that there is struggle for Christians as they pursue righteous living (see especially Romans 6-8). Yet Christianity is a call to holiness; not merely a matter of believing certain propositions about reality. The Bible maintains that the struggle of the "flesh" continues because Christians have not yet been perfected. So long as we remain in our mortal bodies, Christians are susceptible to the same moral weakness that all humanity inherited through the sin of Adam and Eve.

And speaking of Adam and Eve, the Brothers Judd also have a post on their site which completely misinterprets the truth and message of the biblical account, and blasphemously charges God as the "malefactor" in the story.

According to them, God didn't want the "competition" of the man and woman attempting to become like Him; that's why He banned them from Eden and didn't let them eat from the Tree of Life. While correctly asserting that mankind did not have the moral capacity to use eternal life properly (represented by the Tree of Life), Brother Judd attributes God's banishment of Adam and Eve not to love, but rather to divine egoism. It is not for Adam and Eve's sake that He banished them--it is because He's afraid of the competition. This would be laughable except that is also insulting to God, and that's not funny. So rather than see the story of Adam and Eve as a fall into sin, Brother Judd says we should view it as a testament to man's heroic, on-going quest to become "Gods".

This is about as wrong an interpretation of the story as one could possibly come up with. It was Satan's desire to be like God that got him banished from heaven; infected with this sinful desire, he now comes to tempt Adam and Eve to believe the worst about their God. It is ironic that Brother Judd's twisted view of Adam and Eve's original sin comes in the context of a review of the book "The Screwtape Letters". For the theme of Lewis' Screwtape Letters is how unseen demonic powers subtly pervert truth to lead souls away from God, and ultimately, to their doom.

I know exactly where Brother Judd's interpretation of this passage comes from. It comes from the one who in his pride long ago decided he could not stand being just a created angel, and sought to exalt himself as a god. Now, as I read the Bible's tale of creation and the fall of man, Brother Judd would like me to think more highly of man and satan and less highly of God. Hmmm, sounds familiar. Maybe Brother Judd should read Screwtape Letters again, and take its message more to heart. It sounds like a screwtape has got into his head somehow.

No, Brother Judd, Christ doesn't call us to become "Gods" through accumulation of knowledge and the extension of life. Rather we are "blessed" when we are "poor in spirit" and "meek" in attitude, and recognize our lostness and utter estrangement from God, due to our own sinful choices. Then individually we cry out to the Lord, "God be merciful to me, a sinner". Whatever God makes us of after that, all the glory will go to Him.

Blogger Blues

I'm just a lonely blog, man
Nobody done read me in a long, long time

I keep postin' it up baby
But seem like my game is up and I just get left behind

I tries to be funny...I tries to be kind...
But it ain't working out baby, and ama 'bout to lose my mind...

I got them BLOGGER BLUES, o oh ye-ah!!!
I got them BLOGGER BLUES

You know I always lose, o oh ye-ah
because because because be-cah -aw-ozz....

I got them nasty-nobody-gonna-know-nohow-cause-they-dont-read-my blog-anyways-BLOGGER BLUES...
Yes I've got them nasty-nobody-gonna-know-nohow-cause-they-dont-read-my blog-anyways-BLOGGER BLUES

Homeless Riff

[Humor]
Have you ever seen one of those homeless guys in NYC who's skinny and fit, young-looking, with lots of hair? Sure, he's a bit disheveled, smells a bit...but the guy has muscles..not a trace of fat on his body. He could kick your butt, easy. And where does he get that mop-top? Does sleeping in a cardboard box make your hair grow (maybe I should try it)?...Anyway he's racing up the street with a steel shopping cart (yes, a shopping cart from your local Food Emporium) full of bottles loaded up in black or blue platic garbage bags. Well here in NYC I've seen a guy like this RACING to get to the next garbage can...so he can find all the empty cans and bottles and load them up in bags and put them in his cart and bring them to the local grocery store and redeem them for...5 CENTS EACH??

Now this guy works hard, man. That's why he's so thin and muscular. He's constantly on the move, lifting his heavy bags full of cans, hurtling down the streets. He knows his stuff too-- which streets get the most bottles, the best back alleys to search, what times are best for scavenging. And he knows he has competition..that's why he's frantic to get to the bins before the next guy...well, anyway I was thinking. Why doesn't this guy just...GET A JOB!!

I mean, he's shrewd, fit, energetic, industrious..if he got himself cleaned up, wore a suit and tie, and applied all this energy and intelligence to a job interview..well I'm sure he'd get the job! Then he could get himself off the street, start paying rent, start being a productive member of society...Yes...Maybe he's meet someone, get married, start a family...Wake up early everyday to go to work, day in, day out, buy a TV and watch it for hours with his family, eat lots of food, get nice and fat, buy lots of stuff, pay bills--car payments, mortgage, electric, cable, doctors, credit cards--spend time with the kids, go to sleep, commute to work, work all day, commute home, maybe share an intimate moment with his wife once in a while, sleep, wake up, go to work, go home, eat, watch TV, play with the kids, sleep...start all over again. Yep... The great AMERICAN DREAM....oh....OHHH...

Give me a shopping cart and plastic bags, baby, Move over brother, here I come!

The Schiavo Legacy --The Crippled Soul of America

Bad Judgment
What have we come to in this nation when the President, a Governor, and our elected leadership could exert no power to intervene over faulty rulings made by judges? Was this yet another example of the dangerous powers judges have been given, powers that often overreach by making law rather than ruling on it?

Bad judgments "legitimize" immorality--what was once thought of as wrong comes to be seen as right, because the courts decide it is so. Over time, seeing evil happen over and over again, we become de-sensitized to it. Our conscience cannot live with these actions so we devise rationalizations to quell our collective guilt. Thus has the murder of the unborn become a "woman's right to choose"; some will now attempt to portray Terry Schiavo's case as "death with dignity".

But Why Did She Have to Die?
Now Schiavo's case involves an adulterous husband who decided he no longer wanted to abide by his marital vows (presumably, "till death do us part"). Certainly many people would have done the same in his shoes; i.e., have found someone else to live with. As a husband myself, I empathize--it's very difficult to contemplate the pain and suffering Mr. Schiavo underwent as he watched his once vital wife deteriorate. To be robbed of the opportunity of a normal married life was surely a deep personal tragedy, and certainly there would have been much temptation to find companionship elsewhere. Apparently even the Schindlers encouraged Michael Schiavo to date other women.

Yet at the same time, others have experienced what he has and handled it differently. Despite the fact that he could have moved on with his life by turning the reins of his wife's care over to her willing family, he (selfishly?) refused to do so. Was letting Terri die a way for him to drown out feelings of guilt over his failure to keep his promises to his wife? If he was just emotionally exhausted and no longer capable of dealing with her, why not just let her family do so? Why did she have to die? Some have speculated that Mr. Schiavo was motivated by desire for money coming from her death, but giving him the benefit of the doubt that money was not the motivation, why then?

Choosing Life or Death-Whose Perogative?
In commenting on the film "Million Dollar Baby", I mentioned the difference between turning off life support for a person who otherwise would have absolutely no hope of living, and killing a person (as that movie portrays) who could continue living because we (or they themselves) decide that their life is no longer "worth" living.

Beyond the Schiavo case, the question at the heart of the matter is this: who has the authority to determine when someone (not a criminal or an wartime enemy, but a civilian) dies? The court's decision to disconnect Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube was based on the premise that it had been her wish not to be kept alive by artificial means, and that such a wish therefore obligated her family and the court to comply with it. But is her family or the state morally compelled to obey this wish (if indeed this was her wish)? It seems they must follow her wishes if the premise is accepted that the individual has the right to determine if they should live or die, based on a subjective notion of quality of life.

Imagine a different scenario altogether. Suppose Mr. Schiavo, knowing that it was Terri's desire not to be kept alive by artifical means, nevertheless couldn't bring himself to become the agent of her death, out of love for her and because of a deep conviction about sanctity of life. Would it have been wrong then for him to keep her alive, despite her wishes? Apparently yes, according to prevalent belief; it seems the individual's desire is thought to be paramount in such decisions. But this raises many questions.

In the absence of the knowing the individual's choice regarding how they wish to die (e.g., a living will) does a husband/wife have authority to decide whether their spouse should live or die?

Was the court that decided Terri's case obligated, despite conflicting reports from experts about whether or not she was vegetative, and in light of the fact that she would otherwise have continued to live and be cared for by her family, to mandate that Ms. Schiavo must die, because supposedly this was her wish?

I agree that a husband should have authority over decisions regarding his wife in these types of scenarios. But this husband broke his marital vows, which would seem to nullify some of his rights. And in any case, I do not believe that a husband's authority extends to taking the life of his wife. I don't think the court has that right, nor do I think that even Terri Schiavo would have had that right. This perogative belongs to God alone.

"Whose life is it, anyway?"
This was the title of a popular play a few years ago. It is a key question here.
If extraordinary measures must be used to keep a person alive, who otherwise would die, then perhaps that person should be allowed to die. Not so much because it is the person's desire, but because it would seem that under such circumstances we would be fighting the will of God by keeping the person alive. But otherwise it seems to me that we must consider, as we make such serious decisions, the truth that life is valuable in and of itself; that it is a gift from God and we are accountable to him for it. The Bible says to the Christian particularly, "You are not your own, you were bought with a price", referring to the fact that the Christian's body has been purchased by Christ's death on the Cross. But even for the non-believer, the claim of God's ownership remains. For who creates the body? Who creates life?

Last week a group of us got together and prayed for Terri Schiavo, that perhaps God would do an incredible miracle and heal her, and that she would be able to speak for herself and give glory to God for her healing. Sadly, that did not happen, but perhaps the legacy of Terri Schiavo will be to have exposed the crippled soul of America.

Other recent and thoughtful takes on the topic:

C. Everett Koop on Euthanasia

"Always to Care, Never to Kill", A Talk with Robert P. George on NRO

Debra Saunder's piece "Why Terri Must Die"

Jeff Jacoby "Terri Schiavo: Less certainty, more prayer"