Former Broncos Player is Found by Jesus

I just ran across a great story posted on 9news.com.  The title, however, should read, "Jesus Pursues Former Broncos Lineman; Gets Help from His Pal Jason."  If you have a few minutes, it is well worth your time to read.

Former Broncos lineman admits drug habit

God is definitely awesome, and I mean that in the least cliched and most serious way possible.

Salvation Army Band - Phil Keaggy

What kind of guy would I be without dedicating a Culture Corner spot to one of the best rock guitarists of all time (and undoubtedly the best nine-fingered guitarist ever). Of course, I speak of Phil Keaggy. While he is quite good with his band, I prefer to hear him solo--just his guitar and massive spread of effects pedals. I got to hear him a few years ago in just this manner, and it was a performance in which all I could do was shake my head and wonder. Now that I have a few pedals at my own disposal, I am realizing how hard it really is to find the right effects for the right songs, not to mention add backing vocals, drum beats and baselines to songs with just a loop and a guitar. How does one even think up something like that? The man's talent is ridiculous.

So without further ado, I present to you Mr. Phil Keaggy.

Merry [CENSORED]!

I stopped by Starbucks on my way to work this morning, and while ordering my drink I was witness to what, unfortunately, has become a common occurrence. The barista wished his patron a “Merry Christmas.” He immediately realized his error, apologized and extended the store-approved greeting, “Happy Holidays.” The “offended” patron was, of course, not offended in the least and expressed that he rather preferred the former greeting. This got me to thinking, just how many Americans are offended by “Merry Christmas?” Thankfully, the Internet knew the answer.

First, I wanted to know how many of us actually celebrate Christmas. A Google search showed that 96% of Americans celebrate Christmas. Ninety-six percent! That’s 291,671,654 of us, compared to 12,152,985 who do not (based on July 2008 population est.). One might be tempted to think at this point that if 96% of the population celebrates Christmas, approximately 96% of the population would not be bothered by “Merry Christmas.” So I did a little more digging.

I next discovered a 2005 Gallup poll on this phenomenon. The poll focused on consumer reaction to retailer approaches concerning the holidays. Here are some of their results:

• 3% of respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”; 97% would not.
• 32% of respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons Greetings”; 68% would not.
• 5% of nonreligious respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”.
• 8% of non-Christians respondents would be bothered by a store displaying the words “Merry Christmas”.

Now, I’m no business owner, but looking at the Gallup data, I would assume the proper course of action would be to inform my employees to wish customers a merry Christmas! That way, I only run the risk of giving 3% of my customers a negative experience, versus 32% if I extend a generic holiday greeting. That is potentially a serious amount of cash money walking out the door.

So why do many businesses insist on banning “Merry Christmas?” I would have to assume that it’s due either to 1) their being caught up in a culture of extreme tolerance or 2) they don’t want to get sued. Regarding 1), this whole tolerance thing is getting a little out of hand. Let’s take an example. Say three people are in your store. Person A is offended by being told, “Merry Christmas.” Person B is offended by being told, “Happy Holidays.” Person C is offended when you don’t acknowledge the season at all. What are you as a store owner to do? No matter what, you will offend someone. How do you choose whom to offend? Or, conversely, to which person will you give preferential treatment? Using tolerance as the “gold standard” by which one acts leads to absurdities such as this. It is a poor foundation on which to build one’s life. The bottom line is, you can’t be tolerant of everyone all the time, so let us dispense with the notion once and for all. Regarding 2), what can I say? The few sue-happy activists are desperately trying to ruin things for us, and the judicial system is letting them. I suppose if I were a giant corporation with deep pockets like Starbucks, this might be sufficient motivation for me to ban “Merry Christmas” from my stores. Better to bother 32% of your customers whom you know won’t sue than tick off the one guy who will.

In the end, I suppose this is a pretty trivial matter. It doesn’t change the fact that 96% of us do celebrate Christmas, or that some of us even celebrate it for the right reason (by the way, it’s Jesus). But it does make me hang my head a bit and wonder how we even got to this point as a country.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

Fear of the LORD

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." Proverbs 9:10 (NIV)

I'd never really come at this verse from a philosophical perspective, but for some reason I did this morning. Why is the fear of the LORD the beginning of wisdom? How is knowledge of the Holy One understanding? What's going on here, anyway? I began to think...

If we fear the LORD, if we have knowledge of the Holy One, then we have begun at the proper place. We have started our search for wisdom and understanding with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Those who fear the LORD find the foundation of their worldview rests on this statement. Whatever else that is deduced or induced comes from this fact.

Now a person can start at X and form a valid chain of arguments that lead to Y. The logic can be air-tight, and every counter-argument can be refuted soundly. But as we all know, if X itself is false, the rest of the argument is a moot point. If we start off with X = "In the beginning, God...", then we are not guaranteed to make it successfully to Y, but we are guaranteed that we have begun the journey well. We know that whatever wisdom or knowledge we desire, we cannot get it without first starting from "In the beginning, God..."

If, on the other hand, we start off with "In the beginning, God did not create the heavens and the earth", we have taken a wrong turn on the very first step of the journey. We base all our other knowledge on this statement that doesn't hold water, at least biblically speaking. We have started at the wrong X. This starting point may allow one to come very close to arriving at Y, but there will always be something...not quite right. There will be something lacking, something incomplete. The wisdom and understanding to be had from "In the beginning, God did not...", in the end, is not true wisdom, not true understanding. At best, it is an imitation, at worst, an abomination.

Not all paths lead up the mountain. It turns out this is because they don't all start at its base. They begin in the wrong place, and they lead in the wrong direction. A journey down these paths is doomed from the start. But there is one path that does start at the right place; it does lead in the right direction. And at the entrance of that path, a sign reads, "In the beginning, God..."

John Michael Crichton, 1942-2008

I read the sad news today that Michael Crichton died of cancer Nov. 4. He was 66.

He was unique for me in that he topped an extremely short list of modern fiction writers whose books I would actually read. In fact, not long ago I read Airframe, a tale about the VP of Quality at an airplane manufacturer exposing a cover up. As I work in quality in the aviation industry, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Timeline, Congo, State of Fear, Jurassic Park, Eaters of the Dead, The Great Train Robbery--I read and enjoyed them all.

Rest in peace, Mr. Crichton.

In Memoriam*

Michael Crichton

1942 - 2008

Best-selling author Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, November 4, 2008 after a courageous and private battle against cancer.

While the world knew him as a great story teller that challenged our preconceived notions about the world around us -- and entertained us all while doing so -- his wife Sherri, daughter Taylor, family and friends knew Michael Crichton as a devoted husband, loving father and generous friend who inspired each of us to strive to see the wonders of our world through new eyes. He did this with a wry sense of humor that those who were privileged to know him personally will never forget.

Through his books, Michael Crichton served as an inspiration to students of all ages, challenged scientists in many fields, and illuminated the mysteries of the world in a way we could all understand. He will be profoundly missed by those whose lives he touched, but he leaves behind the greatest gifts of a thirst for knowledge, the desire to understand, and the wisdom to use our minds to better our world.

Michael's family respectfully asks for privacy during this difficult time.

A private funeral service is expected, but no further details will be released to the public.

*taken from MichaelCrichton.net.

The Lost Art of Listening

I have experienced several interesting encounters in the past month.  The most recent of these encounters happened today.  I was engaged in a class discussion on a very hot topic at the seminary.  As the lone representative of the male gender in the discussion group, I was asked for my opinion, and I proceeded to give it.  One member of the group, however, made several comments to me that indicated she was not so much listening as looking for ways to argue for her point.  She made various assumptions about what I said that were simply not true, and to be honest, rather offensive.  It was as if what I said was only useful to her if she could use it for her own purposes.

The second encounter I experienced was a few weeks ago, and it took place at a soiree for my wife's coworker.  I met two gentlemen, one of whom was a pastor, and both of whom had attended Denver Seminary.  Ah, I thought, these chaps will engage in good conversation with me.  Huzzah!  Unfortunately, this was not to be the case.  The two gentlemen proceeded to wax theological to each other, pontificating and philosophizing, with each, I believe, attempting to impress the other with his knowledge and rhetorical skill.  In fact, after the first few sentences, I was completely left out of the conversation, even though I would assume that I was their intellectual equal.  After a while I just walked off, and neither one of them seemed to notice my absence.

These encounters got me to thinking--whatever happened to listening?  I mean real, actual listening.  The gentlemen at the soiree never bothered to stop talking for a moment, say, "Jon, as a fellow seminarian, what do you think about x?" and genuinely listen to my response (and one of them was a pastor!).  The woman at class today only listened to me so she could make her point.  If she cared at all about what I thought simply because I thought it, then it didn't come across.  Whether these people intended it or not, they came across very selfish, inconsiderate and rude simply because they didn't listen to me.  I certainly did not feel very valued as a person in these situations.

This is why I try very hard to listen.  And it is hard work to listen.  It is hard work to bite your tongue, to let your own agenda slide and affirm someone else.  But when I keep my mouth shut, my agenda to myself and my ears open, I discover something--other people have good things to say, too!  In fact, I can even learn from them!  I can affirm them as persons of worth and become a better person myself.  

I confess, though, that I am just a little selfish.  I have a maxim that I follow, "Only speak when you have something to say."  So, having politely listened to another person, when I do open my mouth, I expect the same courtesy.  I expect to be listened to, to be valued as a person.  I think this is what frustrates me so much about the opposite behavior.  It can take me some time to think through what I am going to say.  For someone then to disregard my words really irks me.  It lets me know that I am better off saving my words for another occasion.  

In any case, I relate these stories and thoughts to you in the hopes that you will consider your own habits.  Do you listen well?  Can you let go of your own agenda, ask someone a question and just sit back and listen?  I can testify that there are people out there that just may be deeply appreciative of an open ear and a closed mouth, and you may learn a little bit more about the value of people, yourself.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. - Gen 1:27

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. - Jas 1:19, 26

Qwantz.com Takes on the Straw Man

I recently stumbled upon a very interesting and weird comic strip called Dinosaur Comics. The graphics never change (yet still amuse me every time), only the words. One strip I saw today I felt was apropos for posting here for three reasons:

1. You learn about a logical fallacy.
2. It pokes fun at people who debate each other on the Internet. (Who, me?)
3. It achieves 1 and 2 in a funny way.

So without further ado, say hello to T-Rex, Dromiceiomimus and Utahraptor!

Security

"For many people, money is their security." I heard a sermon on the radio the other day in which the pastor uttered this phrase. It got me to thinking. His point was that God should be our security, not money. After all, what is money? It’s just another version of “stuff”. If I just have enough stuff, then I’ll be fine. That sounds ludicrous even as I type it. I say I don’t believe it, but then again…Stuff is tangible. I can see and touch the things I own. God is spiritual; my knowledge of him is not empirical. Maybe that’s why idols were so prevalent in the Old and New Testaments. You could have this tangible thing, this piece of “stuff”, sitting on the shelf. Where’s God? Oh, he’s right over there, chillin’ in the corner.

I think that’s one reason why God commands us to give away the first portion of our income, why He wants us to give sacrificially. It forces us to decide where we will find our security—God or money. I looked at the amount we’ve given away for the year a few weeks back. Let me tell you, that figure would look awfully good in my savings account, with a baby on the way. Or it could have paid off a significant portion of debt. Or I could have invested it, started a college fund or any number of other things. But instead, we gave it away. The world would tell me that I am foolish, and I would probably agree with them. But then again…We still make ends meet every month. All the bills get paid in spite of the basic mathematical rules that tell me we won’t make it this time. Most importantly, I am happy. With every tithe check, I sign away my control over my money. I sign away the pressures of worrying about having enough. I become a steward of God’s money. If He wants me to pay all of my bills, then He makes sure that happens. If He wants me to be able to provide for my family, then He can do that, too. All I have to do is "manage the estate".

“For many people, money is their security.” That’s a battle I have to fight continually. Every payday, I face the decision: Will I write the check out this time? Will I let God be my security? Or will I hold on to my money--cling to my “stuff”?

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." Matthew 6:24-25,32-33

Dangerous Mood - Keb' Mo'

This installment of Culture Corner was an obvious choice.  I had been trying to profile a song by this particular artist for a while, but I couldn't decide on which one.  As soon as I heard "Dangerous Mood", though, I knew this was the song to introduce Keb' Mo' to the Tiger.

Keb' Mo' exemplifies the slow, southern blues style pioneered by Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and pretty much everyone Kenny Wayne Shepherd visited back in 2004.  His skills on the guitar are amazing.  He doesn't have the sheer speed a la Chris Duarte, but every note he plays is filled with emotion--his guitar tells its own story, lyrics notwithstanding.  He also brings a deep, soulful voice to his masterful guitar playing.  He has that one-two knock-out punch that most of us only dream of possessing.  

And remember, if you enjoy this song half as much as I do, then I had twice as much fun as you.

The Big Bad Wolf

The best Christmas present I ever received was given to me by my wife last year.* It was the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. (Why yes, I am a nerd; how could you tell?) It is a great introduction to philosophy by two of the best Christian thinkers today. One of the best features of the book is that each chapter contains a reference list of additional, more in-depth resources. As I was perusing these bibliographies last night, I came across http://www.philcristi.org. This is the website for the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which is "an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy." I have not had the chance to perform and in-depth review of this website, but I have linked to it on this blog for that purpose. I have managed to read one particular article, however, which I felt was definitely blog-worthy. It is an article entitled "The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design: A Review of Richard Dawkins', The God Delusion" by Peter S. Williams.

Although I have not read Dawkin's book, it is obvious that Williams has, and meticulously. In his lengthy review (15 pages, but I would urge you, if interested, to read all of it), Williams dissects Dawkin's arguments for atheism and naturalism and against theism and the Intelligent Design theory. Williams gives a very fair critique. Not only does he point out areas of weakness, but he also points out areas in which Dawkins is right on the money. Probably the most interesting point found in the review is Dawkin's support of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with it, but he does state that if an intelligent designer did leave marks of design in the universe, such marks would be subject to scientific scrutiny in theory, if not in fact. Dawkins also correctly notes that certain scientific disciplines such as archaeology already employ the concepts of Intelligent Design--the problem comes when those concepts are introduced into biology. Williams rightly praises Dawkins for this understanding, while also critiquing him for poisoning the well by "tendentiously talking about 'Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America' and 'creationist Michael Behe.'"

Williams goes on to discuss many other aspects of the book, and for time's sake I cannot repeat them all here. His review is, however, a great read for one interested in understanding better the philosophy that lies behind modern science.

*I expect to receive a much better present this year, though.

Dihydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

My mom forwarded this video to me this past week. I immediately knew that I had to post it, since it so accurately describes my own view on "saving the environment". Penn and Teller's adept social commentary shows the dangers of 1) being so consumed by a cause that the ends justify the means and 2) not educating oneself properly.

I actually did this same thing back in college. I posted a petition outside my dorm room as a joke, and I even got a few signatures--including the RD, who signed his name along with a message instructing me to take it down. (I'm pretty sure he thought it was funny, though.)

Enjoy!

Come Alive - Foo Fighters

When Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side, a large crowd gathered around Him; and so He stayed by the seashore. One of the synagogue officials named Jairus came up, and on seeing Him, fell at His feet and implored Him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live." And He went off with him; and a large crowd was following Him and pressing in on Him...

...They came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?" But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid any longer, only believe." And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. They came to the house of the synagogue official; and He saw a commotion, and people loudly weeping and wailing. And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep." They began laughing at Him. But putting them all out, He took along the child's father and mother and His own companions, and entered the room where the child was. Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!"). Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded.

Change? Ya Got Change, Mister?

I am fairly apolitical, but even rather apathetic souls like me notice politics every now and again, whether we want to or not. In case you forgot, there is a presidential election this fall, and I live in Denver, home to the 2008 Democratic Convention. So I pretty much can't escape politics, no matter how hard I try. (And I try hard.) So since I can't escape it, I will write a rare blog on the subject.

My curiosity was piqued when I heard on the radio that a few days ago, both Obama and McCain gave campaign speeches, in which they used the word "change" a combined 57 times. As I recall from past elections, this is not atypical. Every candidate wants "change". My amorphous curiosity began to formulate into a thought as a result of a discussion I had in class this morning on the difference between change and transformation. Change can be good or bad, directed or undirected. Change is inevitable. In some sense, it just is. Transformation, however, involves change for a purpose. It is based on values; it is always directed. Transformation doesn't just happen.

This put the current election "change propaganda" into a bit clearer light for me. Both major candidates want change. What do they want to change? Does Obama want to paint the White House pink? Does McCain want to raise taxes on llama sales? I'm sure you politics junkies out there know much more than I do, but I submit that the only major change either candidate wants is to have the word "President" before his name and not Bush's. Do they really want change, or will they keep 99% of the status quo, because the status quo brought them into power and keeps them there?

Neither candidate will question the validity of an economy that requires a "working poor" class to survive. Neither candidate will abolish the IRS and mandate that congress stop spending $13,000 for a toilet seat. Neither candidate would say, "Welfare isn't working--so we're going to phase it out and get out of the way of charities and religious trying to help the less fortunate." Neither candidate will say, "America needs to repent of its sin and return to the God of the Bible." Whether you agree with the above statements or not (and I will not allow arguing over the specifics; they are merely examples with which I myself may or may not agree), these are examples of real change.

But why would these men really challenge the system that brought them this far?

Colorado Senate Bill 200

On Friday, Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) signed into law Senate Bill 200, which is a revision of a previous anti-discrimination law. Opponents of the bill, led by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, argued that it would allow for any transgender man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa at all public places (including schools), and that proprietors have no legal recourse. Furthermore, any proprietor who tries to prevent this behavior would find himself or herself sitting in jail for a year. I have to admit, legalizing such a specific law on who can use which bathrooms with such a stringent penalty seemed like an awfully silly thing to do. So I found the text of the law (hyperlinked above) and read it for myself.

What I found was interesting. The existing law made acts of discrimination with respect to housing practices, public places (not including churches), publication of written or other materials, and so on, illegal. A majority of what was changed was the addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes’ characteristics, which already included race, religion, ethnicity and the like. SB 200 basically says, “You can’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.” I would wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, it is wrong to discriminate against anyone, and as a follower of Christ, why would I do that anyway?

The section about which Focus on the Family took issue was Section 6: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, which reads in part (I have emboldened relevant text):

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of
public accommodation

From this reading, it does seem like Focus has a valid argument. If someone is transgendered, then he/she legally could use the bathroom he/she finds most applicable, right? Wrong. Take a look at part of Section 7: Penalty and Civil Liability (again, relevant text is emboldened):

Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to
any citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every
disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in
said section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved

Apparently Dr. Dobson didn’t read this particular clause. With respect to the bathroom issue, I would think that the age-old gender division of bathrooms would be a perfect example of an exemption of this type. All citizens of the country understand that their bathroom choice in a public place is based on their physical “plumbing” as it were. That is how society functions, regardless of one’s creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. The intent of this law, therefore, was not to allow for crazy bathroom switching but to protect a group of people from discrimination.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. I could be mistaken with my interpretation. Maybe she-males are secretly plotting how they are going to infiltrate men’s restrooms around the state. I would encourage you, therefore, to read SB 200 yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

"Then Who Can Be Saved?"

I have begun the arduous task of preparing for my doctrinal oral examination next Spring. Basically, at Denver Seminary, in order to successfully complete the M.Div. program, one must write a somewhat lengthy paper summing up his or her theological beliefs and then defend those beliefs orally (and without notes) in front of a pair of professors. Fun, right? It is, however, an excellent chance to go back and think hard about the entire spectrum of theology and really nail down (at least for now) what I believe.

I am working through the topic of general revelation at present (that is, what God has revealed to us through nature, history, etc.), and the topic of salvation came up. Namely, can a person be accepted as a true believer if he or she has never heard of Jesus? Some would say, No, a person cannot be saved without a knowledge of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, through a human instrument (Rom 10:9-14). One must confess that Jesus is Lord, and how can a person know that if it is not told to him or her? Others say, Yes, a person can be saved without such knowledge. They believe that, just like the saints of the Old Testament, if a person has faith in God to the extent that his or her knowledge will allow, then he or she can be saved in Christ, even without knowing the object of their salvation (Hebrews 11, the famous "by faith" chapter).

Now the debate is much more complex than what I have represented here, but my view is this: I would maintain that it is possible for a person, never having heard the name of Christ, to be saved. The linchpin of the argument for me is the Old Testament saints. They had faith and were justified by it. They knew that Messiah was to come, but they did not know who it would be. Likewise, a person in a currently "unreached" area of the world, if they had faith in God based on what had been revealed to him or her from nature, would have a similar faith as OT saints (admittedly, with a much lesser degree of knowledge). What about Paul's comments in Romans 10? It seems to me that Paul was primarily exhorting his readers to spreading the gospel and not making an exclusive theological claim. That being said, before you burn me as a heretic, hear me out. I did not say that such a route to salvation would be easy. I expect that it would be nearly impossible for a person to respond with saving faith to general revelation. However, in Matt 19, Jesus speaks about the rich getting into heaven being similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle. "Then who can be saved?" the disciples ask. He responds, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Likewise, it may be impossible by our reckoning for a person who has not heard of Christ to be saved. However, let's face it: As an American, I am rich, and I have faith in Christ. With God all things are possible.

One final caveat: I do believe that a person who has heard the name of Christ is now responsible to come under His lordship. Therefore, the preceding paragraphs are a moot point for many, if not a majority of, people today.

So now I pose the same question to you: Must a person hear the name of Christ proclaimed in order to be saved? I have given my argument briefly. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. You never know, with a good enough argument, you might even change my mind...

Philosophy of Evangelism and Discipleship

Today's entry is a slightly modified essay I wrote for a class this past semester. I thought it was one of the better pieces I had written in a while, so I'm posting it. I hope you enjoy it, and any feedback is appreciated, as always.

Evangelism and discipleship are two ideas that have been used and abused by many in the church. Just recently, in fact, Iived a link to a YouTube video from a friend of mine. A prominent youth speaker was telling a stadium full of students about a youth group that had attended one of his previous retreats. The youth group had put up poster boards in the youth room with the names of every student, teacher and administrator in their high school. Within three months, they had given the gospel presentation to everyone in their school (he did not say how many, if any, of these people accepted Christ). The speaker then asked the audience who had had a one-on-one conversation about Jesus with someone in the past two days. Only four had. This, he stated, was the problem with Christianity. Many Christians’ view of evangelism and discipleship, in my opinion, is the same as this man’s, and I believe it is harmful. What is so harmful about this belief? It presents “cold” evangelism as the only viable option. This approach also relies on guilt as a motivator. Furthermore, it completely neglects the idea of relationship and prefers to treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. It is against this type of view that I must stand.

In order to understand evangelism and discipleship correctly, we must look at the ideas behind these concepts. In the New Testament, the idea of salvation has past, present and future implications. Those who profess faith in Christ have been saved (Luke 7:50), are being saved (1 Co 1:18) and will be saved (Matt 10:22). This tri-fold usage of salvation terminology shows that it is a journey. Being evangelized is one of the first steps of that journey, followed by a period when one accepts Christ, followed by discipleship. Evangelism and discipleship, then, are not so much two separate entities but different stages of the same journey.

It is imperative to understand that we are all on a journey somewhere. We who have Jesus are not the sole arbiters of truth and goodness, although we know the One who is True and Good. We also know that the One in question created all men, women and children in His own image. He loves them because He created them in His image. As Christians, we must remember, then, that we, too, should love—really love—our fellow humans because God loves them and they are worthy of love. This doesn’t mean that they are not sinners going down the path to destruction, but it does mean that as we evangelize them we do so with respect. In the case of the students sharing the gospel with everyone in school, I wonder with how much respect this was done. I suspect that it was a well-intentioned project—let’s fix as many of them as we can. What if each of the students had committed instead to deepen one relationship? What good might have come out of that, even if the sheer number of people “touched” is much lower?

This is a hard concept for many of us in the West to grasp, where our idea of success involves quantitative elements. A church with 10,000 attendees must be successful, right? What about my church, that has around 20 regular attendees? Well, bless them, they’re sure trying. I would submit that both quantitative and qualitative elements must be taken into consideration with evangelism and discipleship. There are surely those with the gift of evangelism who can bring the masses to Christ. Most of us do not fall into this category. Some of us even seem always to get the seeds that have fallen to the side of the road (cf. Jesus’ parable in Matt 13)—a lot of sowing, not much reaping. At my church, we pray for both numerical and spiritual growth. I think this balance is a key when discussing evangelism and discipleship.

So, then, what is our ultimate role as Christians, if it is not to tell everyone we meet about Jesus? In a moment, I will argue that this question is not the appropriate one to ask. First, though, we must remember what Jesus said when asked about a person’s ultimate role. In Matt 22, a lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. In his famous response, Jesus states, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (vv.37-39). Jesus said we are to love God and love people. Every action we take, every conversation or thought we have, should tie back into loving God and loving people. This is the heart of discipleship: Tying our life into these two commandments. When Jesus later gives the Great Commission in Matt 28, he instructs us to go “and make disciples of all the nations…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (vv.19-20). As we go, we must remember to “go” in such a way that we love God and love people. This is the heart of evangelism: Spreading the gospel in love.

Now, let us return to the above question. Does making disciples of all the nations equate to telling everyone we meet about Christ? Or does it rather mean working the gospel within the relationships we have? Perhaps circumstance plays a part in determining this, but I would say that the more loving route would typically be the latter. The question Should I tell everyone I meet about Jesus? should be replaced in our hearts and minds with the question How can I love God and people as I spread the gospel? This is the key question for us to ask as we consider evangelism and discipleship.

Having theorized sufficiently, I will now turn to how I practically apply my philosophy in ministry. First and foremost, as with any aspect of ministry, I believe prayer must be central. James 5:16 states, “The effective prayer of a righteous person can accomplish much.” Although I need much work in my own prayer life, I am firmly committed to the idea that prayer must serve as the foundation for all ministry, including evangelism and discipleship. Second, I highly emphasize growing relationships. There are people in my own circle of friends with whom I actively try to cultivate deeper relationships. As a non-Christian example, I have a friend named (Mr. X). I have shared the gospel presentation with him, we have debated the inerrancy and accuracy of scripture and we have generally talked a great deal about religion and philosophy. He knows my worldview, and I know his. He is not currently a follower of Christ. I have learned that I cannot convert him—that is a decision between God and him—and I have accepted that. What I can do is be his friend and listen to him respectfully. He knows I am a trusted confidant, and I know that I am showing him Christ’s love. In the discipleship arena, I can mention (Mrs. Y). (Mrs. Y) comes to me with questions about the Bible and faith. Again, listening is the key. She says that she learns a lot from me, but the truth is, she is working out her own thoughts and ideas through verbalization. In addition to prayer and cultivating relationships, evangelism and discipleship in my ministry involves waiting on the Spirit to work. Again, in the case of (Mr. X), I have been waiting years for him to become more open to the gospel message. God’s timing, though, is not my own (2 Pt 3:9; Ps 90:4). We do not live in a sitcom, where everything is wrapped up in 30 minutes’ time. In the same manner, with (Mrs. Y), as it is with me, growth takes time. Evangelism and discipleship timelines may need to be expressed in years or decades—a thought that we who live in a fast-paced society ought not to forget.

I have in this essay juxtaposed two very different methods of evangelism and discipleship. On the one hand, there is the common method of guilt-induced programs that treat non-Christians as projects to “fix”. On the other hand, there is the less common method of forming real relationships with people, loving and respecting them because they are intrinsically valuable to God. I cannot say that this method is always—or ever—easy, fun and clean (there are no neat and tidy checklists to go down), but I must say that it is the method to which I adhere. I hope you will, too.

"These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Disturbing Trends in Global Climate...Reporting

Monday, June 24, 1974. Time magazine publishes an article on drastic climate changes that are beginning to take place around the globe. It just might be the beginnings of a “climatic upheaval”. Yes, it is the worst fate imaginable come to life: Global cooling.

That’s right. Just 34 years ago, climatologists were worried sick that another ice age would wreak havoc on the earth and its population. The mean global temperature had dropped an estimated 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit since the 1940s. Snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere was advancing aggressively with no signs of stopping. Migratory patterns of the armadillo were changing. All of the signs pointed toward a disastrous drop in global temperature that would decimate the world’s population.

If you read the article, you will no doubt notice that if Time wanted to cut its number of staff writers down, they could substitute global-warming terminology for every reference to global cooling/ice ages and have an article that could be published today, Earth Day 2008, and no one would be the wiser.

Does anyone else take issue with this? Three decades ago, the media were convinced that we would all die in snowy graves. Now they are convinced that we will turn our world into a raging funeral pyre. What will they be convinced of in another thirty years? Global steadiness? I wonder what that article will look like…

Thursday, April 22, 2038. In Russia, crops are growing. In Ethiopia, herds of
cows are strong. At the UN, climatologists gather for the annual UN
Environmental Impact Conference. They are worried that there have not been
the characteristic climate swings the past ten to twenty years. “Normally,
we would expect various rising and cooling trends over the course of a decade or
two. We have not been seeing this—the global climate is at a standstill,”
said Swedish climatologist Soren Kiergestol. “This could wreak havoc on
our environment—it needs climatic diversity to thrive. Humankind must
intervene in order to save our planet…”

This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse: Activist Actor Makes Poignant Observation

I have just a few minutes between ripping up the tile in my kitchen and going to church--time enough for a quick post.

Today's subject is Tim Robbins. Now normally, one of my main life axioms is, "Don't put too much stock on anything actors or musicians say about subjects other than acting and music." So goes with Mr. Robbins, who is a bit extreme for my tastes. However, even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut, and our nut Tim actually makes a pretty good point about television, quoted here at length with commentary from article writer Kevin Sites:

As the keynote speaker at the recent National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference in Las Vegas, the actor and activist decried today's news and entertainment content as driven by a "pornographic obsession with celebrity culture."

"We love distraction," he said, reading from a speech the organizers reportedly tried to talk him out of giving. "I don't know about you, but show me a starlet without panties getting out of a car, and suddenly the world seems like a better place. Show me 'Knight Rider' drunk on the floor eating a hamburger, and I won't ask why my kid has no health insurance. Let's stop burdening people with facts."

A few people walked out, but Robbins finished to a standing ovation. And regardless of opinions, he did succeed in raising a powerful question, made more poignant by the acres of gadgets on the exhibit floor: Why, in an era of mind blowing media technological advances, does good content sometimes seem to lag so far behind?

Why, indeed? 

Wow, A Whole Month.

So I just realized it's been exactly a month since I last posted. I give my readers my most sincere apologies. I bought a house last month, in the process enduring the worst closing ever. Maybe I will talk about that later. That sucked the life right out of my wife and me. And now, of course, we are working on fixing all of the things that need it. I will try to get back to regular posting as soon as I can, but until then, I ask for your patience.

Thanks,
Jon

Handlebars - Flobots

So this edition of Culture Corner is...a little different. I heard a song called "Handlebars" on the radio a few weeks back that really caught my attention. It's from a Denver band called the Flobots. The song and accompanying video really speak to the evil that humans can do to one another. The song captures the depravity of sin, thereby helping us to understand how necessary and effectual Jesus' death on the cross really was and is. If you choose to listen to the song and watch the video posted below, then, I urge you to think about what you are hearing and seeing through the lens of the gospel. Think about what redemption really means. Think about the work of the Holy Spirit. Think about God's amazing love. Think about what you can do to enlarge His kingdom.

On Biblical Inerrancy.

I have a friend who recently asked me how I would defend inerrancy of the original biblical manuscripts. Namely, this friend was looking for me to speak to how we can be assured that when God spoke to humans in ages past, those humans got it down on paper right the first time? That's a pretty good question, and my simple response is I don't know. I have posted my response below, in hopes that some of you out there might be able to add to this discussion. Both my friend (who reads this blog) and I would love your input.

...in the end, Christianity is a matter of faith. There is no way to be 100% sure about the question you are asking. I have found, though, that there is really no way to be 100% sure about much of anything in this life. I have a friend who wants to have everything all figured out before he makes any major life decisions, and as a result, he’s a college-educated and very smart and talented guy working in retail, making very little money and generally not doing much with his life. This does not negate the fact that he is a good friend and a great guy (and I'm not trying to say there is anything wrong with working in retail), but it does exemplify that having all one’s ducks in a row before one begins a life journey, commits to a worldview, etc, is neither possible nor a good idea. There is a very real and necessary element of taking a long, hard look at your options, making the best decision you can based on what you know at the time, and then, well, having faith that you made the right call. (That is my own personal definition of wisdom, by the way.)

So what are we to do, then, with the issue of the transmission of God’s word from God to humans? First, I don’t know why there have not been as many questions raised about this as have been raised about subsequent transmission of that word, so I am of no help to you there. I’m sure somebody somewhere has written about this. Maybe Dr. _______ would know. I email him occasionally and always get a quick response. But moving on…

The idea that God spoke to humans in history is unique (especially for present-day Westerners like us) in several ways. Let me expound. First, the very idea that God, if He exists at all, would actually interact with humans in time and space does not bode well with most people’s world view. Second, the question you raise is a historical and not scientific one, which again poses problems. To understand what I mean, let’s look at something Francis Schaeffer called the “fact-value dichotomy”. Simply put, since about 1850 science has defined itself as the study of natural things in a closed system. That is, science repeatedly tests things to confirm or deny hypotheses, and it allows no room for supernatural activity. Science has also claimed “truth” as its own and banished religion, values, etc, into the realm of relativity. You know, “That’s true for you but not for me” type stuff. Given that, how do we Westerners gage the truth of something? That’s right, through science! But wait, science does not allow for God. In addition, God speaking to a person in the past is not a repeatable event, so it cannot be tested scientifically. So, given that science=truth, there is no way to “know” 1) that God spoke to someone in the past, and therefore 2) that the person in question copied it down correctly. Because of the arbitrary restrictions we have placed on knowledge, there is no way for us to verify (or deny, a point that many people miss) the answer to your question. Our worldview, in effect, has bound us rather than made us free.

So to ask your question from a scientific point of view does us no good. Thankfully, there are other ways to look at the issue. I prefer to look at this issue as one part of the whole. That is, the foundation of my faith is made up of many different arguments and ideas. Now, if I were to take the question of original inspiration by itself, it is useful in pondering and working through the issue. If I make this issue the crux that makes or breaks my faith, then of course I will develop serious doubts! But if I research this question, all the while with the other arguments for faith in the back of my mind (things like fulfilled Messianic prophecy, events in my own life that lend credence to biblical teachings, and so on), then even if at the end of the day, I don’t have a good answer, my faith is not likely to waiver due to the preponderance of other evidence.

So to make a long answer longer, I don’t have a good answer for you on your original question. Again, I would suggest emailing Dr. _______ for much better insight than I could give. At the same time, though, there is enough other evidence supporting what I believe that I can live with a little faith in this area. This probably sounds like a total cop-out, but I do not mean it to be. What I do mean is there will always be mysteries, things you have to take on faith. You investigate and question those as best you can, but sometimes you have to live without knowing the answer for a little while. For instance, I’m buying a house. I have an idea of what homeownership is like, but I don’t know and can’t know what it is like short of owning a house. I have to have faith that I can handle the responsibility, that my house won’t be a money pit, etc. But I have done careful financial planning, I have researched basic home repairs, Jessica and I have discussed this a lot, and I am comfortable knowing that we are making the right decision, even if I at the same time I am a little scared that we won’t be able to make it work! But I’m still buying that house.

I hope this somewhat lengthy but probably inadequate response at least will serve to help you out a little.

On Giving.

I have come to the conclusion that the most spiritual thing I do is giving. It's not praying, or reading the Bible, witnessing or anything else. Giving, for me, encompasses so much more.

When my wife and I were first married, money was very tight. To be honest, we didn't have enough to cover the basics. Unfortunately, we had to buy groceries and pay some bills on credit. It wasn't the best financial policy, but when one's other option is going without food and shelter, well, them's the breaks. As you can imagine, paying the bills was not a pleasant experience, and we were remiss to part with our money. In the middle of this, of course, I felt that we needed to tithe. I reasoned that being faithful to God was more important than amassing more debt. I was putting obedience over the basic needs of life, potentially. It was not an easy decision for us to make, but it was something I felt we needed to do.

What happened next was a truly spiritual event. I wrote the first tithe check. Even as I wrote it out, I felt all of the financial pressure I had been under melt away. I had effectively removed myself from the driver's seat; I was telling God that He was now in control of my finances. I was free. Free from worry, free from doubt. I knew that God would provide.

I wish I could say that we got a check in the mail for thrice the amount we gave the next day, but we didn't. (This did happen to us recently, though.) We didn't magically get out of debt through a clerical error in our favor. We still had to struggle to pay the bills. The act of giving up control, though, changed everything for me. No longer did I live under the tyranny of the present. No longer did I have to white-knuckle every last dollar before sending it to a creditor. I simply paid the bills as best as I could, and trusted God.

In the long run, God has provided. I do not tithe, have not tithed and will not tithe so that I will be blessed; I tithe because I want to be obedient to God. God, however, out of His mercy, has blessed us. Since beginning tithing, we have both become gainfully employed, we have implemented and maintained successfully an aggressive debt-reduction plan, and we have even been able to afford decent transportation and a roof over our head, all without having used a credit card in well over a year. This is much more than we expected or deserved. Every day, I see God blessing us financially, and I must assume it is at least in part because we have been obedient to Him.

Even if He chooses henceforth not to bless us materially, though, I will still give faithfully. "Though He slay me, yet I will hope in Him." For me, giving is about submitting to His Lordship. If in His wisdom, He allows us to lose everything, I will submit. If He allows us material riches beyond imagination, I will submit. If He just gives me joy living in a regular house with my family, I will submit.

All because of writing one check.

Book Alert - Rediscovering Paul.

I discovered this morning at the seminary bookstore that one of my old college professors, Dr. Rodney Reeves, has just co-authored a new book on Paul, entitled, appropriately enough, Rediscovering Paul.

According to the dust jacket, it is meant as a textbook for undergraduates, but seminary students would also benefit from it.

Here's a description of the book from Amazon.com:

For some of us, the apostle Paul is like a distant uncle. We've heard he's pretty important. We've read the good parts of his letters. But sometimes he comes across as prickly and unpredictable. Not someone you'd like to hang out with at a coffee shop. He'd raise his voice, try to convert the barista, and we'd want to slink out the back door. For a mid-afternoon latte, we'd prefer Jesus over Paul. But actually, this is the guy who, from Ephesus to Athens, was the talk of the marketplace and the raconteur of the Parthenon. Maybe it's time to give Paul a break, let go of some stereotypes and try to get to know him on his own terms. If that's where you are, Rediscovering Paul is your guide. This is a book that helps us find Paul again--holding forth in the marketplace of Corinth, working with a secretary in framing his letter to the Romans, or pastoring the messy emerging churches of Philippi and Thessalonica. Drawing on the best of contemporary scholarship, honed by teaching and conversing with today's students, Rediscovering Paul is a textbook that rises above the rest.

Unfortunately, I can't claim that I have read it and it's the greatest book ever, but I did sit under Dr. Reeves, and he is definitely an expert on Paul. And another New Testament expert, Dr. Craig Blomberg, was kind enough to write a blurb for it, as well. Considering these two men are two of my favorite professors of all-time, it's enough for me to want to read the book. And if I ever finish all of my required reading, I shall...

Cake, Anyone?

I hate to harp on subjects unnecessarily, but I must go back to the dichotomy of faith and reason. I have had several conversations and have read several blogs generally dealing with this theme lately, and it reminded me of a point I was probably going to make some time ago.* It goes something like this…

In the ongoing battle over God’s existence, evidence for Christianity, etc, there are typically two camps. In one camp is the Christian who says that there is plenty of evidence for his or her belief in God and such. In the other camp is the non-Christian who says there is no evidence for this kind of thing (or the evidence points in the other direction). The stage is set; the debate continues ad infinitum.

There are good and bad arguments on both sides, but I want to look at one in particular. This is the argument that there is no “scientific” evidence for God or faith, so therefore these things cannot be true. Now, if one believes in a unified theory of truth, that all areas of study can touch each other, that there is Truth that transcends categories, in that case we have an argument. But if one believes in the fact-value dichotomy, we have a problem. Since we humans have apparently decided that science is and should be separate from religion now and forever, then let us dispense with the argument that a belief in God is false for scientific reasons. In a fact-value dichotomy, there is no true or false in the realm of values. True and false become meaningless terms. Science becomes useless in matters of faith. Likewise, faith becomes useless in matters of science.

Whether or not this dichotomy is the actual state of affairs in the universe is extraneous for the current discussion. The point I wish to make is this: If you adhere to such a worldview, you limit yourself a priori from arguing against God, Christianity, etc, by using evidence (or a lack thereof) as a criterion. In a fact-value dichotomy, there can be no evidence for or against faith. It is entirely subjective. You can, therefore, never claim that Christianity is wrong—or right. Any such statement is mere emotivism, or at best, relativism.

I suppose I see this issue surface the most with the evolution debate. Purported evidence is presented against a Christian worldview (namely, that God created the universe with purpose), and this is labeled science. When purported evidence is presented arguing for a Christian worldview, this is labeled as pseudoscientific garbage not worth the paper and ink expended upon it.

It brings to mind the old adage, “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”


*This is in no way directed at anyone personally.

Freedom of Thought.

One of my favorite things about Denver Seminary is captured well by the words of long-time administrator Vernon Grounds: "Freedom to think within the limits laid down by Scripture." This statement is incarnated by the mix of professors and students who make up the seminary.

In my seminary career, I have become friends with and learned under people with beliefs ranging the evangelical spectrum (and even some outside of evangelicalism *gasp!*). I have had a class with a dyed-in-the-wool Republican professor, only to go directly to my next class, taught by a registered Democrat with Liberation theological leanings. I have fellowshipped with students who were tee-totaling business entrepreneurs and anti-capitalist beer connoisseurs. Some refuse to patronize Wal-Mart, some (like me) worked for them.

Though not always a Utopia, I have enjoyed my time at the seminary, and a lot of that is due to this reason. I enjoy the eclectic mix of theology and politics, because it forces me constantly to evaluate my own beliefs. And I can assure you, those who doggedly hold on to shoddy ideas in such an arena are probably not engaged.

There is a wide spectrum of beliefs in Christendom, some good, some not so good. I have learned that there are a lot more good ones than I thought. "Freedom to think within the limits laid down by Scripture" enables us (well, most of us) to dialogue respectfully with those who may view things differently, while at the same time moving forward singularly toward our goal of glorifying God.

And that is a very refreshing thing.*

*I should note that this has been my own experience. There are students who have had quite different experiences, and I do not presume to speak for them.

Thoughts on Thoughts.

There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to humiliate them.  There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate and enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse...Blaise Pascal, Pensees (236/578)

When we are accustomed to use the wrong  reasons to prove natural phenomena, we are no longer ready to accept the right ones when they are discovered...ibid. (736/96)

Truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it. ibid. (739/864)

We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. 1 John 4:6

Life After People

This past Monday, the History Channel premiered a documentary entitled Life After People. Using computer graphics, the show displayed what would happen to the world if every person suddenly disappeared. While of course it cannot be said to be 100% accurate, it was an educated guess at what would happen. This much, however, is clear: Our earthly legacy is frighteningly fragile. Within a few hundred years, most of what we have accomplished would be gone without a trace. Houses would collapse and be covered by vegetation, bridges would fall, media of all types would be eaten away by the elements. A traveler to such an earth might find Mt. Rushmore, or the pyramids, and wonder who made them and why (but after a few million years, even these too would be gone). The traveler would not find my car, my house, my bank account. This is my earthly legacy: A few hundred years of evidence that I existed, if I am lucky.

This is what the world tell us is valuable: Money, power, possessions. Money, the show did not mention, will disappear as soon as we do. Power saves no one from the grave. Possessions are just as useless and temporal.

God tells us that doing His will is valuable. He tells us that our true treasures are stored in Heaven; they are eternal. Caring for widows and orphans. Making disciples of all men and women. Serving the timeless God. The world doesn't understand, but the effects of these actions will last long after all else is gone.

"Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell--and great was its fall." Matthew 7:24-27

Media Reality.

"Remember: they make the rules. And the game's got nothing to do with accuracy, or the facts, or reality. It's just a circus."

She wasn't going to argue with him. She petted the dog.

"Fact is," Amos said, "everything's changing. Used to be--in the old days--the media image roughly corresponded to reality. But now it's all reversed. The media image is the reality, and by comparison day-to-day life seems to lack excitement. So now day-to-day life is false, and the media image is true. Sometimes I look around my living room, and the most real thing in the room is the television. It's bright and vivid, and the rest of my life looks drab. So I turn the damn thing off. That does it every time. Get my life back."

Taken from Airframe by Michael Crichton, p. 341.

The Tiger's Playground.

If one blog is good, two must be better, right?  Right.  So I started a second blog, The Tiger's Playground.  As the name suggests, this is a site where I can write about, well, whatever comes into my head.  I will still definitely maintain TGMB as my primary blog, but every so often I get an idea in my head that doesn't deal with theology, philosophy, culture or music (yes, I am surprised, too), and I wanted an avenue of expression for such ideas.  

Who knows what will end up on the Playground.  I sure don't.  So if you want to read something serious and thought-provoking, check out TGMB.  If you are in the mood from something of the genre "weird", try the Playground.

Conversion.

I am currently reading a book on Christian conversion for a class that I will be taking in the Spring.  This books highlights nicely what I have come to believe over the course of my life: Conversion is, for many people, not a simple, one-time event.  Though there are certain things that all conversions have in common, the timeframe can be an instant or a decade.  Furthermore, for those of us who had a gradual conversion, we may not be able to say with certainty the moment in time we "switched sides" (perhaps it was not even a temporal event at all?).  

I illustrate this with a common occurrence at the church I attended as a youth.  Immediately after opening announcements and a song or two, we were instructed to greet those sitting near us.  This was a tall order for us introverts.  Sometimes, in an attempt to help generate conversation, we were asked to tell one another when our "spiritual birthday" was.  This rather cheesy term referred to the moment in time we were "saved" (never mind that in addition to the past tense [we were saved], there are present tense [we are being saved] and future tense [we will be saved] descriptions of salvation in the Bible).  Many people spouted off the date in question instantly.  March 21, 1974.  September 4, 1992.  I always responded with, "I don't know."  I always felt a little guilty about this.  After all, If I don't know my spiritual birthday, how can I know I'm saved?  

As a five- or-six-year-old, I made a decision to accept Jesus and got baptized.  Of course, I was a small child, so I didn't fully understand the implications behind this act.  Over the next ten years,  there were several important events in my life that were relevant to my spiritual condition.  Even as a veteran seminary student, there was a particular series of events that perhaps has had the most impact on me spiritually.  My relationship with God changed drastically (for the better).  

So when was I saved?  When did I cross over?  When I was five?  When I was 25?  I can't really answer that question, and I'm not even sure that it has an answer.  The only thing I can say with certainty is 

I once was lost, but now am found,

Was blind, but now I see.

Weddings and Divorces.

Today is Jessica's and my second wedding anniversary.  As I was driving home to pick up a card for my wife, I was alerted by the radio that today is also National Divorce Day, although I have not been able to verify this claim.  Regardless, I listened to several callers talk with a divorce specialist about why they wanted a divorce.  One woman was cheated on by her husband, but still loved him dearly.  He loved her with "98%" of his heart.  On the other end of the spectrum, another woman, as far as I could tell, just didn't want to be married anymore (and she seemed pretty nonchalant about the whole thing).  She guessed that maybe her husband knew this,  but she hadn't bothered to tell him yet.

These two cases angered and saddened me, especially today.  When I stood at the altar of the church two years ago, I made a commitment before our God, our families and our friends to my wife that I would honor, respect and love her forever.  Though I am not perfect, that is what I attempt to do every day.  It angers and saddens me to see people tearing down what I am attempting to build up.  I understand that there are certainly times when one should pursue a divorce (even Jesus said as much), but that doesn't mean it is any less damaging to its participants.  I also understand that being divorced doesn't make one a bad person, but it does make one a hurt person.

Well, my wife just got home from work, so I must end this post.  And honey, I'm looking forward to at least 58 more years!

Mainstream Media - Jon LaJoie

Sometimes other people express ideas much better than I can, although those people are still usually named Jon.