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.