Noooooooo!

Just went to the latest Star Wars movie. Other than the cheesy 7th grade dialogue and the Frankenstien-the-space-man scene where Darth Vader becomes Darth Vader and screams "nooooooo!", it was great. Y'know, for someone so "strong in the force" as young Anakin, he isn't much of a politician and falls for evil waaaaay to easy. I guess they don't make Jedi like they used to. Just goes to show that just because you have the "brawn" of the force does not mean you have the "brains" to use it!

Best Anti Porn Website I have ever seen

2016 Disclaimer: I've grown a lot since writing this blog in 2005. I leave it up as a testament to personal growth and change.

This website is run by a raving left-wing feminist who calls herself "One Angry Girl"... and God bless her. This has the best anti-porn information I have ever read. If you want to protest porn, get info here. Her politics definitely make her a left-wing, huge-government, big-brother-will-meet-every-need, raving-anti-bush democrat-clone... BUT if you want a great site that protests against a huge problem in society today.

http://www.oneangrygirl.net/antiporn.html

Here's an email I sent to angry girl:

A REALIST View of Salvation

A REALIST View of Salvation

For the past 400 years, the debate in Protestant Soteriology (the study of salvation) has focused almost entirely on two alternatives: Calvinism and Arminianism. The outline of this debate has been centered around the five cardinal points of Calvinist Soteriology summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. The debate has been basically an affirmation of the five points of the TULIP on one side, and a denial of these points on the other. For at least 400 years (or more, since essentially the same debate was going on in the Catholic Church long before the Reformation) no new information has been added, nor have any radically new perspectives been looked at (with the possible exception of Karl Barth). The debate has mainly centered around one side twisting the other side's "proof texts" to fit their own agendas. The basics of this debate are summed up below:

THE RISE AND FALL OF CONFIRMATION

Confirmation is a sacrament that has its origins (like all sacraments) in the life of the Apostles who followed Jesus. You might say that the first confirmation was administered by Christ Himself when He poured out the Holy Spirit upon His disciples at Pentecost, giving them the power to preach, teach, pray, heal, and perform miracles (see Acts 2). This empowerment by the Holy Spirit was Christ's "confirmation" of His Apostles and their mission to spread His Gospel everywhere. Every place they preached, their message was confirmed by the gifts of Christ's Spirit working powerfully in them.

A Letter to some "Biblical Unitarians"

Sent to the fine folks at: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/ and http://www.truthortradition.com/

Aha! Some post-modern day Arians! You are aware that your position has been rendered non-credible officially since the council of Nicea in 325 AD, and again at Constantinople in 381 AD (even though the church and empire was overwhelmingly Arian, I mean... "Christian Unitarian"... during the intervening 50 years)? You simply must read not only your Bible again (in original languages, please), but also your church fathers: Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, etc. They are all far more scriptural (not to mention artful) than anything found on your website. Or you can simply read any one of several hundred catholic, reformation, or modern systematic theologians. They all present an infinitely more coherent interpretation of Scripture than your private interpretations.

But, if you persist in being Unitarian, may I suggest the following:

Priorities and Corporate Stewardship

For as long as Paul's first letter to Timothy has been in circulation, the admonition "a root of all the evils is the love of money" (1Tim. 6:10, YLT) has been a catch phrase for the Christian attitude toward material wealth. Rightly so, for Paul also tells us that "some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs... But you, man of God, flee from all this, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (1Tim 6:10-11, NIV). This verse, as it is commonly interpreted, seems clear: money is evil and will corrupt you if you try to pursue it. But is this what Paul meant? How would that interpretation mesh with Paul's earlier admonition that "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer" (1Tim. 4:4-5)?

Anthem

Someone has said 'to live deliberately is to suck the marrow of life'
A life with a purpose beyond ourselves transcends all the pain and the strife
My God, You are my purpose! Yahweh, You are my light!
You have shown amidst my darkness... Christ has turned to day my night.
If Your blood is living water,
make my thirst a desert wind!
Parching, wretched hot, and blistering within...
If Your body is my bread,
make my hunger gaunt and greedy!
On the brink of starvation, make me a beggar needy...
If Your Word is Spiritual milk- let me suckle like a newborn babe.
If Your Truth is my life's meat- make me a cannibal in blood lust rage!
Let me stare steely eyed resolute, into the dark hollow depths of Hell
and shout with last lung's breath "NO! NO MORE! I SHALL TELL!"
Tell it to all creation- yell at the whole dark world
Scream it with my very life- so much more than just mere words
Tell them all that Christ is life- and He is life alone
In Him is salvation for everyone- every soul that claims His throne
Scream it! Proclaim it to every nation- to every tribe and tongue!
Speak the truth to every person- man and woman, old or young!
Yes! He is my Lord... He is my God- wonderful and ever true
Incredible, and yet so odd- that He should save me too
I've talked the talk, I must walk the walk- and live what I believe
Shall I hear His Word, yet deny my Lord? May I never thus be deceived!
Live it, say it! Preach it, pray it! Every second of my whole life...
No hesitation- don't ever delay it! If I live, may I live as Christ!
If I live, may I live as Christ!

1998

Fortress of Nothing

I want to build a huge stone castle
and enthrone God deep in its walls
I want to construct concrete catacombs
so thick that they'll never fall
But God in His grace merely gives me this skin
sheltered only by His mighty hand
Yet I want a brick house stoic faith
built upon rocks I have lugged through this land
But Faith is not stoic
Faith never stands still
Faith is not some haunted fortress
sitting there on a hill
No- Faith is dynamic
it moves and it breathes
And it is only made strong
when its comfort it leaves

1998

Who brings the Kingdom, part II

This is a follow up from "Who brings the Kingdom", so if you want to really understand what is going on, please read it first (posted March 2005). My professor replied with the following:

Who brings the Kingdom?

In my "Church and Social Context" class of 2005.03.11, an interesting debate was brought up concerning Evangelicalism and the current bunch of End-Times apocalyptic novels (like Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" series). The professor is a liberation theologian who believes in realized eschatology (which means that the end will be "realized" as God's people liberate the world from bondage and bring about the Kingdom of God on earth). Because of his theological stance, the professor had a big problem with the idea of apocalyptic eschatology. Apocalyptic means "un-veiling" or "Divine intervention". It is the idea that the world will get worse and worse until God has to un-veil Himself and intervene by invading the world and establishing His own Kingdom. So the tension in the argument was set up like this:

Realized eschatology: We will make the world better and better until all heaven breaks loose and the Kingdom comes by our efforts.

Versus

Apocalyptic eschatology: We will make the world worse and worse until all hell breaks loose and God has to intervene to bring His Kingdom.

So, I wrote this:

Aren't Anglicans and Episcopalians really liberal and anti-Biblical?

I feel I have to answer this question because of a lot of "bad press" the Anglican and Episcopal Church has brought upon itself in the last few decades. Unfortunately, some Anglican churches are far too liberal (actually, a better term is "revisionist"). The decision of some bishops in 2003 to ordain an openly homosexual "bishop" in New Hampshire, who was living out of wedlock with his "lover" after he left his wife, is just one example of this revisionism. But, worldwide, revisionism is not the norm for the Anglican Church. In Europe, Canada, and the United States, you will find a fairly even split between Biblical, Christ-centered Anglicans and revisionist Anglicans.

In general, the Biblical side of the Church is growing and the revisionists are shrinking. However, if you go to Africa and South America, you will find an overwhelmingly vibrant, Biblical, Christ-centered Church that is growing by leaps and bounds! The Anglican Church is the fastest growing Church in Africa right now, with around 60 million members (compared with 6-8 million in Europe, Canada, and the US). Honestly, the Church is in a struggle for revival right now, and revival is prevailing slowly and surely.

The Flavors of the Anglican Church

1. Christianity and Ice Cream

I admit it. I love ice cream. My favorite flavor is chocolate fudge ice cream from Baskin Robbins. There are plenty of other flavors I really enjoy, but chocolate fudge is my favorite. Don't get me wrong. I love all kinds of ice cream, not just chocolate fudge. If you offered me another flavor of ice cream, I would eat it because that is certainly better than not getting any ice cream at all. I would even eat vanilla ice cream, although it is pretty bland to me. But if given the choice, I would pick chocolate fudge. That's kind of how I feel about the Anglican Church.

You see, I think Christianity is a lot like ice cream. There is a basic recipe that you have to follow to get ice cream, including milk, sugar, cream, salt, ice, and just the right temperature. But within that recipe there is a lot of leeway to add ingredients to make the ice cream better. But you have to be careful. If you add too many extra ingredients, it can cease to be ice cream and become a cold glop of candy. Likewise, if you take away too many ingredients it can cease to be ice cream and become a slushee or popsickle.

In the same way, all truly Christian churches have a basic set of ingredients: One God eternally existing in the three persons of Father, Son (Jesus Christ), and Spirit, worshipped by a fellowship of believers who have been baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We all believe the Bible is inspired by God to show us how to have a relationship with God and live for Him. These ingredients are basically summed up in the recipe of the Creed. But, some Church traditions barely add any flavor to their ingredients and are like plain old mass produced vanilla ice cream. Other Church traditions add so much extra stuff to their faith and worship that you don't know where the ice cream ends and the candy bar begins. And there are lots of other non-Christian religions that try to be ice cream, but they don't have the right ingredients to start with.

To me, the Anglican Church is the chocolate fudge ice cream of the Christian world. I love all of Christianity. Catholic Churches, Protestant churches, Independent Churches: they are all better than no Church at all. But given my choice, I pick Anglicanism over the rest. Why? Well, that is the purpose of this booklet. It is to describe to Christians and non-Christians the uniqueness and richness of the Anglican Church. Now, I will admit, I am biased. Other people may disagree with what I will say, and like their own "flavor" of Christianity better, but I will try to be fair and accurate in what I say about my own flavor and theirs. I have tasted most of the major flavors of Christianity. I have been a member of mainline Protestant Churches, Independent Churches, Pentecostal Churches, and Charismatic Churches over a period of nearly a decade. I can say that the Anglican Church is what tastes best to me.

Jimmy and the Sponge

2017 UPDATE: I disagree with much of the content in this blog now, and am keeping it online only as evidence of how I have evolved and grown in Christ. In particular, this blog is evidence of both how clueless I was about LGBTQ struggles (especially in some of the stereotypes I engage in here), while also showing that I was on a slow trajectory to understanding that committed LGBTQ relationships are morally equivalent to committed heterosexual relationships. That insight would finally bear fruit around 3 years later, near 2008. But here is where I was at in 2005. Read at your own risk. I leave this up as a memorial to how Christ has helped me grow and evolve.

Now for chapter 327 in adventures in missing the point. So, I am watching the news, and apparently the new Sponge Bob video is being protested by Dr. James Dobson of "Focus on the Family", because it advocates homosexuality. I have not watched the video, so I do not know if the evil cartoonists are trying to lead poor six year old boys down the path of gay prostitution or talking with a lisp. The makers of the video say no. James "I am Christ's policy advisor" Dobson says yes. Who's right? I don't know. I guess it depends on who you think is more honest and reliable.

Is it the people who make a lot of money from selling videos and dolls to children, who's business would be hurt if they really did promote homosexuality to six year olds? Or is it the guy who sells millions of dollars worth of books and expands his "religious right" media empire every time he "uncovers a plot to destroy Christian America"? Should we trust the people who have every reason NOT to make Sponge Bob gay? Or should we trust the guy who has every reason to start a witch hunt? I am not saying the venerable Doctor Dobson is a liar, I am just saying that he has every reason to skew the already effeminate character of Sponge Bob to his advantage.

Critiques of the emerging church movement

As someone immensely sympathetic to the emerging church movement, I have some critiques of the movement. I am interested in seeing what you think...

1. Despite protests to the contrary, it seems like the emerging church movement is neck-deep in consumerism. I own a lot from the emergent YS line, and it seems like sometimes they use "emergent" as a tag line for new, hip, trendy, cool. My biggest critique is that the whole movement (of which I am admittedly a part of) smacks of avant-garde consumer trendiness...

Just look at how they market Dave Kimball, or postmodern youth ministry, or Len Sweet, or Brian McLaren. At the same time these guys (rightly) eschew modern American consumerism, they are neck-deep in it.

Are we there yet?

We've all been there. It's the big yearly mission trip to (fill in the blank), and you have been driving the 15 passenger van for about 10 hours, and you have the annoying kid (God love him) in the back yelling "are we there yet"? Your rear end is stuck to the seat in a pool of sweat. You have listened to the same Christian CD five times in a row. And this kid keeps asking "are we there yet"? You tell him to shut up and chill out over and over (in the kindest way you can), but every half hour or so, he asks "are we there yet"?

I learned from a youth ministry friend of mine the perfect response (which she, in turn, learned from her youth minister). Just say "Five minutes… we only have five more minutes" every time they ask, no matter how long or how short the time is. Pretty soon they get frustrated, and then give up, and learn to enjoy the ride. You know, upon further reflection, I think that is what God has been saying to me lately too: "Five minutes Nate, we only have five more minutes". He keeps saying it until I shut up, chill out, and learn to enjoy the ride.

Why I hesitate when I hear “someone got saved”

While walking into the grocery store one day I happened to see a young woman who I volunteer with in a “parachurch” youth evangelism organization. I knew that she had gone to summer camp with many of the students we worked with all school year, so I asked her “how did camp go?” She responded with a smile “It went great… three of our kids got saved… so-and-so accepted Christ… and remember so-and-so the atheist? He accepted Christ too!” I smiled, congratulated her, thanked God, and exchanged a few pleasantries, and then departed. Then a recurring thought hit me: Did they really get “saved”?

Government and Religion in God's Plan

A Short Theology of Government, Defense, and the use of force to protect the innocent

Government and Religion

In all ages, God's family must co-exist with those who choose to stay outside of the family. Therefore, God has set two complimentary forces at work in society: government (to govern all people) and religion (to govern God's family). Both government and religion have similar goals: to bring community and peace out of chaos and destruction. Yet, they use different tools to accomplish this. Government uses the police and physical force to control people's actions. Religion uses persuasion and the force of conscience to control people's actions. Also, they have different areas of oversight. God made government to use justice to protect people and property from crime and physical violence. God made religion to protect people from immorality and evil that is not physically abusive, and help them do good instead. For example, government protects people from the physical crimes of murder and theft by legal force.

Religion, on the other hand, persuades people away from hatred and jealousy that cause these crimes, and urges them toward Love. Likewise, it is the Government's responsibility to make sure that society is safe enough for people to pursue Love, life, and purpose. It is Religion's responsibility to lead people to Love, life, and purpose in Christ. Because of this, it is the role of religion to help the needy through charity, because only religion can truly give purpose and love with charity.

emerging church manifesto

Welcome to the Emerging Church! There is a whole movement out there across the world primarily among evangelical churches called "the emerging church movement"...

The emerging church movement is hard to explain... and it is just developing as a consciousness within the Church, because it is only about 5 years old... McLaren's book "A New Kind of Christian" (see below) was published in 2001 and was kind of the "shot over the bow" that started the whole thing off...

It is basically a whole lot of people, like myself, who are evangelicals, but who have been burned by the Evangelical church establishment in various ways, and feel short-changed by how it has over-simplified the Gospel and then mass marketed it in ways that are very individualistic, consumeristic, and self-centered... and we are looking for something different, but we do not know exactly what that is yet...

I know who the antichrist is and when Jesus is coming back!!!

2018 Disclaimer: I disagree with many aspects of where I was at in 2005 when I wrote this. For instance, I have supported marriage equality and LGBTQ inclusion for about a decade at this point. And I used to love to rant on blogs. As a result I sound insufferable on this blog. I leave it up as a testament to how God helps us grow over time.

I was driving down the road in the Dallas Area listening to a program called "Religion and Politics" on 91.7 KVTT, so-called "christian" talk radio, at the 3pm hour, on 2005/01/07 (I write all this detail so you can send emails to the station and/or the radio program if you wish). And I hear this preacher, "Brother-I-am-a-pandering-preacher-at-some-conservative-right-wing-Jesus-is-american-church" start talking about the "end times". In particular, he talked about how the anti-Christ would be the former Russian Premier Gorbachev, and the "whore of Babylon" would be Roman Catholicism, a.k.a. the "state religion" of the new-and-upcoming "European Union".

He said he could "prove" this from the book of Revelation that since the "great whore of Babylon" (a.k.a. Catholicism with their emphasis on the Blessed Virgin Mary) was riding the "Red Dragon" (a.k.a. Communism, of whom Gorbachev supposedly represents, even though he was one of the instigators of bringing more democracy and free market economics to the former Soviet Union). But, lets not allow actual facts to distort the truth we want to believe...

Sins of Addiction and Sins of Aggression

I guess there are lots of ways to categorize sin: Violations of the ten commandments... Not doing to others as you would want done to yourself... Not following Jesus' example... The "seven deadlies"... Acting in a way contrary to the fruit of the Spirit... Acting in ways that enslave, degrade, or harm others... How often we live without remembering and practicing the presence of God.

All of these are extremely valid ways to look at "missing the mark" of God's goodness and love. Furthermore, I think that all of these are helpful "scales" to measure our walk with Christ, so long as we don't use them to beat up ourselves and get trapped into a guilt cycle. Walking with God is not so much about learning how NOT to sin, as it is learning to DO good and to GET UP when we fall down.

Its like learning to dance. When you learn, you know you will fall down, step on toes, get out of step, and embarrass yourself. The key to learning is not to get all timid and fearful and guilty and stop trying to dance so you don't do anything stupid. The key is to step in with gusto, move your body, and ask forgiveness from your partner when you screw up. The worst thing to do in learning to dance is to give up trying. THAT is stupid. That is embarrassing. Everything else is forgivable.