The Hardest Part About the Gospel

I suppose this one got me thinking while listening to the opening lines of "What If I Stumble", where Kevin Max opens with "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world finds simply unbelievable".

According to most surveys, the a greater percentage of the United States is classified as a "churched" nation, whereas the majority of the population has easy access to a church/place of worship. It is reasonable that most everyone has heard some portion of the gospel, went to church or at the very least had easy access to a church. It is not very common for someone to have no idea what Christianity is about in the United States. That is not to say their tacit understanding is true, but most have a decent understanding to the Gospel.

To ask someone if they know who Jesus was or anything about him most people can give some kind of an answer that might be in the ballpark. Likewise many surveys indicate the vast majority of the American public identifies themselves Christian. But somehow, amidst the saturation of “Christianity” many people think that if you are a generally good person you'll go to heaven. I am hard pressed to find what church started preaching this message because it has proliferated our society for as long as I can remember (I know it isn't that long). This I believe is one of the most dangerous philosophies the world has known. Because as Matthew 7:23 clearly says that what matters is to "know Christ". Many people confuse that with knowing about Christ, and the worst part about it people think that is enough and they are good to go.

The other night while I was up at all hours after coming off a 24-hour duty shift, my sleep pattern was still recovering so I was awake to chill with some of the people that just got back from the club. I have gotten a little more comfortable with the presence of alcohol and its effects. I find it is useful in helping people to say what they really think and sometimes go deeper than a T&A discussion. I suppose what makes matters worse is the kind of theology described above is the type professed in the barracks, at best.

Anyways, when someone has this dangerous philosophy I am at a loss. Scripturally I want to take the approach of rebuking a brother or sister in Christ, because they claim to be a Christian. I know that wouldn't do anything but probably seem like I am coming across as a holier-than-thou punk to put it lightly. If I ask them when the opportunity presents itself the whole, “do you know Jesus?” People think "uhh yea" much of the time. That is if they are even in the mode to talk about it. So in a world that for the most part really doesn't know what it believes when it comes to Christianity but calls itself a Christian nation what are we to do?

The best I can think of is best explained by Casting Crowns, "Love Them Like Jesus". I suppose I am not satisfied with loving them as just enough. I like to believe I am a patient person but when I have been in this environment for nearly 5 months and have seen little or no progress in the world around me I question how effective I am being?

I suppose I should count myself fortunate for God’s perseverance in faith and the growth in ways that rival a mountain top but this camp is two years long. Part of my discouragement is seeing someone that I thought I had the best chance to bring back to Christ, quickly becoming like all the others. I really don't know where she stands in her faith, if it is her own or from her roots, she is a PK. I think of the anti-drug commercial with the girl watching her friend drown as she stands and watches and I feel helpless to stop people from the destructive lifestyles I am surrounded by.

I want to make a difference, I want to have a sense of urgency, and I have yet to see any sprouting seeds of hope. I know it is all in Christ's timing it just gets frustrating seeing nothing happen from my attempts. In the frustration I have often considered that maybe I have too many differences in the way that I live that is holding people back from responding, I suppose it is a twisted way of looking at 1 Corinthians 9:20. I actually believe it means we are to meet people where they are, that Paul was not going to expect the gentiles to behave like Jews so he had to bring the Gospel to them differently than he did for the Jews.

In moments of frustration it sometimes looks like becoming like the world so the world will hear you. The whole idea that one must have experience with an area before they have valid knowledge. Thinking about that outside the box at the moment that is entirely ad hominem fallacy. Is my information or what I have to say based on true facts? Why should it matter then if I have never joined the statistics then? That was cool, learn something new everyday.

Abortion - The Only Question That Matters

I suppose if Jonathan didn't ask me to write on this one I know I would've gotten around to it eventually, but this is a note for everyone else, I do take requests.

There is one single issue with the topic of abortion, through reading a couple books and actually talking to people about the topic I have yet to find more than one real question. "What is the unborn?” It seems so simple but that is all there is to it. My personal stance on the subject is abortion for other than to save the mother's life should be illegal, counted as murder because I believe it to be murder. The only circumstance I would agree abortion is the better situation is with tubal pregnancies. This is very life threatening for both the mother and the child. From my understanding the best situation that can happen is that the baby would have to be born very prematurely and it is still a very risky procedure for both the mother and child. I hold the position I do because I do not believe in killing innocent people, since I want to save lives holding a position which forces someone into a situation where their life is in direct danger is unreasonable. In addition, scripture clearly defines murder is sin and I am hard-pressed to find a Christian opposed to the saving of innocent lives. Some people will attempt to sight an obscure passage talking about Babylon along the lines of "Happy is he who tramples infants". I also want to point out that I abhor organizations such as the Army of God, which condones and encourages attacking abortion clinics and personnel. Now let's get on with it, the "why" I believe what I believe?

The physical arguments people use to support abortion actually have nothing to do with anything except the classification of the unborn. People will say the babies are too expensive, unwanted, will be abused, or any other reason they can come up with, those sugarcoat the real issue. Is the unborn a human being that should be protected under the Constitution of the United States or is it a lump of flesh a conglomeration of cells which can be discarded like waste?

For each argument for abortion one must ask “would the same argument be a valid argument to kill a toddler?” Such as being expensive, children are very expensive, does that mean we can kill them when they cost too much? There are millions of unwanted homeless people in United States; does that mean we can start killing them? Sadly there are thousands of abused children every year, since they are at a much higher risk to have a self destructive life should we kill them now and save the tax dollars? Hopefully you said "no" to each question, and the answer to “Why not?” is because they all are human beings.

So why do these arguments appear to work with abortion? We have missed the point, and unless we approach the unborn as human beings then we can never win the fight for life. There are four differences between myself and a developing child inside a pregnant woman; these differences vary in degree and intensity however I do not believe any of these differences are reason enough to kill a person. The differences are: size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.

Size, although being of greater or lesser size can have its advantages throughout life our size does not define us as human beings. If we want to peruse the idea that size might define us as people then should we start removing rights from people under say 4’ 10”? In addition should people 6’4” and taller be given special rights for being "more human" than the majority of the country’s population? Even more, the very few 7’plus people, should we elevate them to a semi-god like status for being among the "most human" specimens in the world? I hope you said "no" to all these because the thought that a person's size defines them as a person is ridiculous. Yet, how many of us have heard people exclaim that since an embryo is the size of the tip of a pencil it can't be human? Same issue different degree. Unless I can start killing people shorter than me, then we cannot accept the idea that a fetus’ size has any bearing on its humanity.

Level of development, this is a real fun one, a person's level of development should not have any bearing their humanity. Did you know that the human brain is not fully developed until somewhere in our 40's? Anyone with an high school education should know as children grow in adolescence and puberty their reproductive systems are developing, thus before then those systems were not developed. Here are some proposals, we should measure brainwave activity because it denotes mental development and the people who score the highest will be the most human! Body builders have perhaps the most developed muscles in the world, so they must be more human than those of us that have not taken to such a lifestyle. Then the bad news, people with down syndrome and other mental disabilities would be declared less human than people who have developed normally.

How a person has developed or develops themselves has any bearing on if they are human or not. How many of us have heard people argue that because a fetus does not have a developed nervous system it is not human? What does not having certain abilities people get, have anything to do with us being human or not? Whatever a fetus has not yet developed, if we leave it alone it will develop. Not having a fully developed system, body part, or whatever physical feature does not determine our humanity.
Speaking of development because some people have attempted to argue “development does make us more human”, did you know the full title to Charles Darwin book is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Life". At that time the argument was if black people were human or not. Charles Darwin believed that because women’s’ brains were about the same size as an ape's brain they should be held at the same level, as for the exceptional woman that did show above average intelligence they should be ignored, that is where you get when you determine humanity on development.

Environment, where I am has no effect on what I am. I started this morning rolling out of bed to get ready for PT. While I traveled from my room did I ever stop being me? Have I been the same person since I woke up, walked all over post and returned to my desk? Maybe that doesn't work because all that was a short distance, when I got off the plane after arriving in Germany was I a different person? That can be an issue of philosophy which I will get to, but physically was I a different person? If these travels have not changed who or what I am how on earth does a journey through the birth canal change a fetus many people believe to be non-human into a valued baby to love, hold, and cherish? Was there a special stamp the doctor stamped making the child a human or was it human before it left the womb? We all travel throughout the day, even as I have been writing this I am sure I have scooted around more than a foot, and I am still the same person with the same thoughts.

Degree of Dependency, I do not believe because a fetus is dependent on its mother to live disqualify it from being a human being. People will argue it is not viable, well neither is a toddler, and from people I know even as adults they still are not viable to live on their own. I tend to think that those that are more dependant are more valued, not less. If being dependant on something or someone to live then, are people with pacemakers or dialysis no longer human? The pro-choice line of thinking would say yes. One example is Peter Singer, he is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year. He argues parents should have the option to kill their newborn up to a month after it is born because it is not yet viable. In addition, he believes any child born with defects should be killed on the spot for the overall benefit of the parents and society. If viability determines humanity then Peter Singer isn't proposing anything too harsh, but if it doesn't well the first child Peter Singer attempts to kill, he would promptly be charged with attempted murder.

Is humanity something that can be gained or lost? If a person looses all viability while in a coma are they still a human being? Are they still a person? Some philosophies would say "no", to them I ask “Then what are they and how did they transmute into something that is no longer human?” When people talk about the conditions and attributes that makes us human it is usually by tasks or abilities. We are human because of what we have the capacity to do not what we can actually perform. If we are determined valuable by how well we can do math, run, or lift weights then many animals are more human than a lot of humans. Do we look at the whole package or certain aspects to determine if we are human or not?

I was at the gym watching a nature program the other day and they were comparing to how certain animals are more athletic and superior to humans at certain events. It was using examples like penguins can swim faster, cheetahs can run faster, and hippos can hold their breath longer to claim humans are inferior. I was rather appalled, I would like to see a penguin, cheetah, or Hippo swim 3 miles, ride a bike for 20 miles, and run 6 miles before I concede any of them to be more athletically inclined than humans are. Animals were created for an environment and they are very well suited for where they live.

How does someone who thinks differently than I do justify that an unborn child is not human? The interesting thing about the differences I listed, humanity was being spoken of as a measureable thing. I used phrases like "more human" and "less human", we use descriptions of more or less to determine amounts, not states. If I have more water that concerns quantity not quality. Humanity is a thing we either are or are not, this idea is much easier to accept if you happen to be a creationist, because the teachings of evolution follows that humans developed to become human. You can trace the same thinking found in evolution as communism, racism, fascism, and other social ideologies that we tend to think are wrong. When I speak of being human it involves a mind and body so far I‘ve only approached the body aspect.

If the unborn is not human what is it and when does it become human? Earnst Haeckel the one who made the comparative embryos in the 1860's introduced the idea that humans develop similarly to all other animals. He might be given credit for the belief somewhere in development we "become" human. By the way in 1875 he was found guilty of lying by the college he taught in, yet the chart and his teaching is still used today. Something to remember, those who argue the fetus/embryo is not human must provide a valid answer for what it is, if they claim it is not human the burden of proof is on them to explain what it is. I have yet to see, hear or read about two humans producing anything other than human. Cats make cats, dogs make dogs, and it goes the same way for everything. Two creatures of the same kind produce after their own kind. Scientifically we determine what things are by looking at what the parents are.

Why Don't I?

When I reflect upon what I have done on my own to grow spiritually over the last 4 or 5 months I find it comforting to know that I am frequently spending time to grow; be it through reading/studying or one of the several forms of media that I have. The most recent series I watched was some sermons by Andy Stanley out of a church in Georgia. He had an interesting series on the Gospels, similar to the route of Case for Christ, but emphasized what was most probable and how logically thinking people could deny the Gospel's truth. They had a nifty skit to see if Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could stand on trial.

Anyways the "this" I refer to is my behaviors to seek Christ and grow spiritually. Although I do find it comforting to know that I am seeking God, a question hits me now and again usually while I am just pondering as I rake leaves or do some meaningless task. Why didn't I do this back at home? I mean since I have been here I have read a book, wrote several Bible studies, listened to probably more than a hundred hours of sermons and seminars. The majority of the resources I have had for quite some time. Why does it take me being in the most isolated place I have ever been spiritually, to seek active growth?

Take the Hume messages for instance, I have had those since the conclusion of the 2003 Summer. I think I might have listened to 2 weeks’ worth of messages to remember what they said. I was tracking which messages I had taken notes on and just listened to and so far I have gone through a couple fishermen conferences, a youth pastors' conference, and several weeks of summer camp messages and a few miscellaneous messages. Why does it take the harsh circumstances for me to finally be proactive? Maybe I see more opportunities to share with people so I want to follow 1 Peter 3:15 to be ready at any moment to give a defense for the hope that I have. That would be a great church answer wouldn't it?

Sadly I think it is because there is a part of me that wants to be independent. I wouldn't try to say why I want to be so independent so often, could be part of my personality maybe that is how I was taught with the whole American part, maybe it is because I am a child of Adam. I think many people can try to link events in our past to psychoanalyze why we behave the way we do, with this I think it the Adam part in us. One of the biggest things that I have learned in my spiritual walk is that this life is about depending on God.

So often we hear the sermons and messages about accepting God and becoming a Christian but this is something that I think has occurred to me over time. People that see Christianity like a bunch of rules often miss the point of making God our God. I like to stress the importance of the relationship with Christ. The close personal connection is where we learn the deeper purpose of why we are instructed to do what we do. All the while we still have that part in us of wanting to be independent. I don't think that can be called our sin nature to want to be independent, or can it? That is pretty scary thing to consider, sin is the separation from God, so if the desire to be independent from God... I think that can qualify. Whoa... So does that extend the dangers of freedom into the rest of our lives?

I believe that all the principles of our Christian lives should overflow into our entire beings, but this thought is pretty scary. I think you might see where this is going, is freedom a bad thing? Phew, when I get to this point I can easily say "no". Our freedom of choice is paramount in our ability to sin and God loving us enough to let us do what we want. So from that angle freedom is a good thing. I suppose what got me on the path of pondering its potential was that freedom is able to be used for good or evil. Looking back at where my thoughts were going, the potential to do wrong is always present, I often wish I did not have that potential but it is something I must continue to battle daily.

This really got me thinking from the last sermon I saw. It was about Zedikiah and the overall behavior of the Jews throughout the Old Testament. The repeated process that we see throughout the Jewish history from the time of Saul until Zedikiah, the last King of Israel, was a pendulum of faithfulness. Jeremiah warned Zedikiah to repent from his ways and he wouldn't so God stepped back and let Nebuchadnezzar do his conquering thing. Granted when I do my own thing I don't go as far as Zedikiah got nor was I disciplined as harshly. Mr. Stanley had a really true statement I found great value; God does not discipline those he loves to punish them, but to win them back. How often do we have to get to our wits end before we'll turn around and do it God's way? If you are anything like me, I will usually get so far or so devoted and not see the danger or see the need to keep the guard up and then I am repenting, again.

I hate to think this cyclic process is a lack of commitment on my part, but how dumb am I that I keep falling for the same things every time? I mean this is a tried and true cycle, not quiet set to a calendar but good grief talk about repetitiveness. That was much of my spiritual behavior back at home and not that far from what it is here. I know I don't fall as often as I did when I was at home because the danger is much more apparent and constant. What I keep returning to, is why do I only respond to the danger I see? After all Ephesians 6:10-13 clearly tells us that we are fighting the unseen. This goes right back to the material from Romans 6, probably the most studied chapter that I have heard commentaries and looked at, and I still fight, sometimes I win sometimes I loose. When I lose I recall a bit from I think it was Todd Arnet that said it, it was something along the lines "I am not activity constantly fighting sin, because if I was, it would've been long gone from me. I fight sin in bursts, and when I sin, it is because I wanted to."

Epilogue: As I read through this to correct the grammar and typos, I was grieved by the blatant pride I had in the faith that was so important. I survived that trial of faith by the God's provision alone. I was reminded why I embraced Reformed Theology so much, that I had to be humbled. Reformed Theology is a non-essential discussion Christians can have with each other upon finding the common ground of basic orthodoxy. This simply reminded me why Reformed Theology was necessary for me.

I Finally Got a Digital Camera

I finally got a digital camera. Hopefully I will have posted some of the incredibly fascinating sights of Germany that I have seen... yawn. I managed to get one on sale from the PX for what I think was a great deal. It is a nice 4.1MP Sony, like anyone, I started to play with it right after opening it. I quickly realized as I played with it on the ride back to base, a digital cam isn't that special.

I recall a good deal of interesting facts about the human body, animals and other aspects that have irreducible complexity to the point that God's creation should be obvious to anyone. Among those tidbits one that stuck out in my head was that the human eye records approximately 2 Terabytes per second worth of information if that same information were to be put in digital form. Best way I can describe, a lot of freaking information. I took note that the pictures I take at their quality were roughly 2mb each, seems about right I think the resolution is something like 2400x1900. So comparing the 2MB picture to 2TB of information the picture quality is somewhere along the lines of 1/1,000,000 in quality to what our eyes record per second.

Off hand and as I initially thought when I heard that number thrown out there that is rather farfetched, aiming high perhaps. It was not until I got the hi-tech 4.1mp digital camera that the statistics on my eyes doesn't seem nearly as farfetched. With my glasses that can really use a new prescription I can see several miles out when the sky is clear, all the while what I see is for the most part rather clear. I would suggest taking pictures with your digital camera to see what I am talking about (Disclaimer: please don't be the driver if you are going to test this). I tried taking some pictures of some cool looking buildings probably about 1/2 mile away, after all it was really big from my point of view and we weren't driving terribly fast. The pictures looked awful, if I managed to get the right area it was blurry, tiny, and the building was much smaller than what I saw. I even tried to take some pictures of traffic signs as we passed them and they were very blurry because I was still moving, and this was at like 10mph that the pictures still looked awful.

There was a part of me that thought, "Awww jipped this camera is crap", then the other part of me is like "Woah, all of a sudden 2 terabytes doesn't seem so far out there". Considering what I can see, how clearly it is, and all the aspects of my sight, I just felt a little bit smaller and how awesomely God made our eyes. I didn't realize how cool it was until I saw what modern "technology" has produced in the 21st century, compared to my eyes, yawn. To think that is just our sight, who in their right mind says that our eyes are poorly evolved, cause if they are their still better than this camera, I mean things are undersized and lose focus at 20ft. I need to spend a couple hundred dollars to see clearly with a foot long lense to see the same or clearer image that I can see with my built in lense that is home many mm thick? Simply awesome to realize how great God's creation is.

What a Wonderful World

I finally got a digital camera. Hopefully I will have posted some of the incredibly fascinating sights of Germany that I have seen... yawn (oops). I managed to get one on sale from the PX for what I think was a great deal. It is a nice 4.1MP Sony, like anyone, I started to play with it right after opening it. I quickly realized as I played with it on the ride back to base, a digital cam isn't that special…

I recall a good deal of interesting facts about the human body, animals and other aspects that are irreducibly complex to the point that God's creation should be obvious to anyone. Among those tidbits one that stuck out in my head was that the human eye records approximately 2 TB/s worth of information if that same information were to be put in digital form. I took note that the pictures I take at their quality were roughly 2mb each, seems about right I think the resolution is something like 2400 x 1900. A mathematical comparison the 2MB picture to 2TB of information the picture quality is somewhere along the lines of 1/1,000,000 in quality to what our eyes record each second.

It was not until I got the high tech 4.1MP digital camera that the statistics of my eyes started to click. With my outdated glasses I can see several miles out when the sky is clear, even with my corrupted unassisted eyes I can still see better sights than this new camera can capture. I tried taking some pictures of some cool looking buildings probably about 1/2 mile away, after all it was really big from my point of view and we weren't driving terribly fast. The pictures looked awful, if I managed to get the right area it was blurry, tiny, and the building was much smaller than what I saw. I understand the aspect of a fixed lens versus our lens, does that not make the function of our eyes that much more amazing? I even tried to take some pictures of traffic signs along the road. They were very blurry because I was still moving, and this was at like 10mph that the pictures still looked awful. There was a part of me that thought, "Awww jipped this camera is crap", then the other part of me is like "Woah, all of a sudden God’s creation really was something spectacular". This is especially amazing considering we have had how many millennia of mutations and fallenness that might have weakened our created state. What I can see, how clearly it is, and all the aspects of my sight, I just felt a little bit smaller and how awesomely God made our eyes. I didn't realize how cool it was until I saw what modern "technology" has produced in the 21st century, compared to my eyes. To think that is just our sight, who in their right mind says that our eyes are poorly evolved, cause if they are their still better than this camera, I mean things are undersized and lose focus at 20ft. It is simply awesome to realize how great God's creation is.

Are Atheists Open Minded?

"Faith does not imply a closed but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical." -Sir John Templeton

I think it is fair to say that as a whole Christians viewed by the world are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant people. I have gathered these thoughts while reading Case for a Creator and reflecting on some of the MySpace forums, namely one of the more dysfunctional forums I have visited, Hardcore Christians Living Hardcore. I think it is important to point-out this is directed to the stereotype of Christians and to those who do not believe what we believe.

I know that there are Christians who are closed minded, un-accepting, and ignorant but there are many who are not. I find in modern society it seems so important to be “Open Minded” and it is often with new social agenda that Christians are seen as the closed minded group of them all. I base the combined experiences not on any one person that I have talked to but common thought processes that have been made apparent to me through my interactions with people that don't think like me. As I think of one of the most interesting situations to me are the people that insist that everyone should be accepting. I believe this has to do with the definition of “judging”.

A common thing I noticed in the pursuit that everyone must be accepting is that those who are not accepting are seen as racists, bigots, or hate mongers. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the mindset that everyone must accept everyone rather un-accepting? To many people it seems to be a good idea to accept everyone, but is that entirely healthy. I have certainly come to appreciate far more are the freedoms I have because I am an American, and the freedoms I defend as a soldier of the US Army. If we are to have a well rounded society we must have conservatives and liberals and some extremists on both sides can be needed to not lose focus on what is really important from time to time. I just wanted to have these premises.

I found that between talking to atheists and the stance of some promising atheists mentioned in the Case for a Creator there are some interesting aspects to what Atheism actually is and how much faith it really requires. I find this even a little more relevant due to I think there is somewhat of a big issue throughout the nation about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution in public schools. Back to the title question are “Atheists open minded?” I believe it to be not as much as they think they are. In the debate of Intelligent Design the most important thing was "What does the evidence suggest?" Are features of the physical and natural world suggest that the universe, galaxy, solar system, planet and successively smaller echelons of development going down to the chemical level suggest there is intelligence in all of this? There are those of us that are willing to allow more possibilities, such as intelligence in the natural world and such a crazy idea like creation when current evidence seems to agree with this theory the best?

I remember on one of the first days of our studies in the evolutionary process in high school the teacher stated that intelligent design/creation studies did not follow the scientific method so they did not count as real scientific arguments/issues. I honestly think my teacher through that tidbit out there because there was enough of the class that would at the very least approach the subject of evolution with a raised eyebrow. After reading Case For a Creator I can now confidently say that the theory of Intelligent Design is a valid theory according to the scientific method. I think Werner Von Braun, seen by many as the father of space science, said it quiet well, "the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

I find it interesting that in the world of the highly educated atheists, they have faith that the evidence for a self sufficient naturalistic theory will come. Yet their hope is called science because it concerns a scientific theory at hand. I cannot remember what periodical that I read, commenting on the ID debate going on in Pennsylvania, but it opened with such a statement somewhere along the lines of "all scientists agree that evolution is fact." Something that rivaled such a claim as a PBS documentary that had a response of 100 renowned scientists stating that the theory of evolution is far from settled and is not in the best of condition. To me maybe it is just the media's assumption similar to that of Lee Strobel in his own search or lack of search until he was really challenged those years ago to investigate Christianity, Faith and his most recent book Creation. To have a basis that something I took as fact actually being recognized by more than the Christian science organization I find empowering. In addition to requiring some serious faith in evidence that will prove a theory, it breaks the line between science and faith that is supposed to be present in the search for truth.

Remember faith is a hope in what is unseen and untouched? Be it an immaterial being like a spirit or empirical evidence. If I started to get into the discussion of consciousness that would drive atheists into another hard spot. Atheism implies the materialist point of view; Christianity implies a form of the dualist point of view. Correct me if I am wrong but if one is limited to a certain point of view such as the materialist limited to that of the physical world then isn't it only natural that a mindset that allows for something beyond the physical is more open minded? After all isn't that the goal of society to be open minded? And yet Christians are criticized because we are so closed minded.

In the midst of the popular secular idea that evolution is the adequate explanation about human origins, I asked myself why that might be. Then it hit me, it makes perfect sense why so much of American society would adhere to such a naturalistic approach? I had to get to college “Intro to Philosophy” before the idea that there is more to the world than the measurable was introduced to me in the realm of public education? Yet, since I can remember we were taught in Sunday school, sermons, and other church lessons, there has been more to life than the measurable from the beginning. I think this issue might give reason to why many people that I have encountered today refuse to believe that there are empirical evidences that support the faith I already had.

Think about this, to a person that had not grown up the possibility of there being more than the empirical world in formal education, is it shocking that so many people would cling to something as improbable as evolution to explain so much of their purpose? The funny thing is that although public education does not touch the subject until our latest stages of education it is something that all of us have pondered on our own just wondering the more basic and puzzling questions of our existence at some time or another. Maybe that could turn into a movement to include philosophy in more high schools, then again I have heard that it is a subject in many high schools, just not at the one I attended. These months that I have been actively seeking out the materials and arguments of many people I have heard about I honestly believe that there is enough information that if enough Christians would present it to the world I think we can change the course our country has been taking for years.

As I mentioned in Why Don’t I, I recently watched a sermon series about the reliability of the Gospels. I heard similar information that I read about when I attended the Alpha course about what history books use as valid history for the Roman empire. For instance, the ancient histories we have about the first century are based off of the Gallic Wars and the writings of Tacitus. Of the 10 copies known the earliest copy of the Gallic Wars is dated 900 AD. Tacitus wrote 30 volumes, we have 2 copies of half of what he wrote and his copies are dated at 900 and 1100AD. Historians do not dispute the information and history in those ancient texts. Why do so many people dismiss the historical value that the Gospels contain when there are thousands of copies that have been dated to be 50-70AD? Even better, there are copies of Paul's letters that are dated up to 2 years after Christ's death. Why do intelligent people toss those documents aside because they are "religious"? It is because they report supernatural things, namely Christ's miracles? People will use their bias and experience that miracles can't happen and that in turn makes the miracles in scripture unbelievable. Why else would logically thinking people disregard ancient texts about a Jewish carpenter that are in greater number and detail than the cumulative history of the Roman Empire in the first century?

Wanting to Belong?

I think a lot of this became much clearer to me in the last week or two. The Saturday before last I went to play poker with some friends. Something to get out and heck, it was only a few bucks so why not. I suppose that could refer to James 4:17 as something that for me was not wrong and wasn't sinful, I don't doubt if a couple people might raise an eyebrow about the whole poker thing. The thing that really stuck out to me was how our ministry could be hindered.

I think a one of the couples there are Christians, I don't get to work with him very much but I did notice for the most part he doesn't curse and I know his wife definitely was raised to be Christian and she holds onto some of that. We had some good theological conversations and discussions about Christian music that also would persuade me to believe they are Christians. At the same time on of the things discussed at this last week’s bible study was concerning people who have said the prayer of salvation but do not or have not produced fruit, that topic might be a blog on its own. Anyways, they both got drunk that night, it was rather entertaining and made winning from them much easier in the course of the night, but in retrospect, it hit me how they didn't differentiate themselves from the other couple. I think it was clear that the other couple are not Christians.

A couple Friday night's ago there was a Unit Ball, it was as a whole deathly boring even for a formal event, I thought I had high tolerance to formals but wow, that was almost painful. One of the couples I know from church were there they were having some drinks, hey no big deal why not? They have their own reasons for wanting to drink. I feel like much of my experiences I view a step back from everyone else around me, like I am watching them all and not actually taking part in the events with them. I wondered, “How many Christians reduce aspects of ministry by taking part in the social norms?” I think drinking is definitely one of those social norms. By us taking part in the normal activities that the world takes part in, how many opportunities do we lose to show people our difference? I honestly think sometimes the more different my life is from everyone else the more enjoyable it will be. There are so many unhappy people around me, and I believe their lack of fulfillment is because of how they live their lives. It is like two manuals to life; the easily popular one is the way the world goes about things, and then there is the way the Bible instructs us.

There are several black and white guidelines that clearly tell us the do's and don'ts, but as I have gone about my life seeking to know God, I came to realize many if not all the guidelines in scripture are there for a good reason. These are principals that make sense without needing to have a relationship with God, knowing God just makes it that much better! As we go further in our lives we can expand to live more differently than just the do's and don'ts of scripture.

I think that is what gets these ideas to abstain from certain lifestyles and activities than the rest of the world seems crazy and extreme while we are enjoying life so much more. Through not experiencing things we are getting more out of life. This is completely against the most common attempt to persuade me to do something, “just try it once, how will you know it is not for you when you haven’t experienced it for yourself?” How many times have we all heard that one? For some reason people have this need to experience something to know if it is good or bad in order to learn something. I don't know if I stuck a fork in an outlet when I was little to figure it was a bad thing, but I think this is a perfect example to show this part of us starts early. There are some things we don't need to try that we are willing to take on faith, I don't know many people that will attempt to be poisoned to know that it really is poisonous. Where is the line society has drawn on what is it okay to take by faith and what is okay to take by experience?

Does this have to do with a need to belong? By experiencing some of the more painful aspects of life is that how we can greater connect with people? I remember hearing something like this in a sermon some years ago, that Christians should take things by faith and as we have become more faithful to more things we understand why we are to live such ways. I think the speaker said that was God simply checking to see if we can obey and then revealing the "why" is a reward for being faithful.

What Did I Get Myself Into?

Written 11 November 05

            It was sometime in Advanced Individual Training (AIT) when I decided not drink after I found out I was going to spend two years in Germany, for now it is not while I am in the Army. It is likely to expand to probably the greater portion of my life in not it all. Something I am certainly learning though is this is going to be a lot harder than I thought it would be. In AIT it was a new experience, just hanging out in an atmosphere where alcohol was synonymous with leisure, I figured people would go a little crazy since it had been about three months without being able to drink or smoke for everyone in my platoon. I figured, “Ehh they just wanted to make up for lost time.” But as the freedom increased, the drinking did not decrease. Many of my peers spent every morsel of their weekend at hotel parties. Is this what everyone is talking about when they refer to the college scene? After all, the demographics are about the same, except we will always get paid on time. It was definitely easier in AIT. I was under age, not that this was a deal breaker but it was an acceptable reason to abstain. I suppose at the time that was my reason for not wanting to drink. Trying to have a social life within my bounds of behavior is proving to be difficult. I have yet to find a group of Christians or another practicing single Christian with which to hang. As I get to know the people in my unit I don't think there are any single male Christians in my company. It seems the majority of the people I would be inclined to hang out with (more mature and see things closer to how I see them) happen to be married.

            Last night I went to the Irish Pub, it was my first bar experience. There was nothing terrible about it, no raging alcoholics; a rather uneventful experience. I am getting used to being in an environment with alcohol and not partaking but for some reason there is a little part of me that wants to try some. I faced similar feelings at Chi-Chi's on Tuesday night also, the margaritas looked tasty. There are a range of people that surround me at these events, almost always someone asks me if I want one and most people make no big deal about not drinking, but others do press on that I take “just a taste”. I’m sure many have started with “just a taste.” I know I am not going to get drunk off of a sip, but that is not the point. My goal is to get through the Army without drinking; to take a sip in my mind would ruin it.

I am feeling the pressure, I have thought “hey, maybe if I just take a sip then they'd stop bugging me and that would be that.” However, that is not how sin always knocks on our doors. I doubt there are many alcoholics who seek out to let it ruin their life. Now don't get confused that I am claiming it is a sin to drink, far from it. After all Christ's first public miracle was creating wine from water, and it was the good stuff. There are even references that note the health benefits to take a drink. At the same time we are instructed not to get drunk. For me I am speaking of James 4:17 in this situation. Sin is not a line dictated exactly through scripture. Because sin is a separation between us and God and our connection to God is a personal one, then the separation is also at the personal level. That is how some things can be sin for some people and some things are not sin for others, at the same time I need to be honest with myself of my daily battles.

Over the last 3 months while people have been offering me and at sometimes nearly forcing alcohol down my throat I have done some thinking as to make a more meaningful reason to why I don't drink and to stay committed to that decision. I think this is one of the best ways of describing how Christians might fit into this world. We are to live our lives differently than those around us. How we live our lives differently is to our own deciding. I think one of the most effective ways of living differently is not taking part in activities that we have every right to take part in. I see my decision of not drinking as something that greatly separates me from the vast majority of those around me. By sacrificing this small and unused area in my life to God, that it will become much more than I see it as now.

I am of legal age both in Germany and in the US, there are no cultural qualms against the use of alcohol as something unusual or odd, in fact it is rather norm. In the US we have hotdogs and burgers, Germany has beer and bratwurst, it is a very normal thing to drink. So with every right to take part in this aspect of life and even a way to better fit in to the culture, I should take part in drinking, but I think it is just those same reasons that makes my sacrifice all the more useful for God to use. I suppose in the scheme of things there are also such reasons as it is not healthy, it is expensive, and it doesn't taste good, I know I have used those at some time or another but to treat this as a spiritual act of worship, puts its importance to stay faithful so much higher than any secular reason. Since I have laid this down before God, to me, if I do take a drink it would be a sin. I felt compelled to write this for two reasons, because it is getting harder to continue to say "no" and I am asking for your prayers to keep me strong and true to my decisions. It is also something of value to let you all know how I am really doing.

Epilogue: I took my first drink as a promise to a good friend in Germany, that if we encountered one another after the Army I would have my first drink with him. God did reunite us in the most evident ways, that should probably be a blog for its own time.