Why I Believe

During the process of working on my NaNoWriMo project for this year, I
had asked my Senior Pastor a question that one of my characters poses to a
minister in my story. Long and short of the question was: Why do we
believe?

The following is excerpted from his answer:

As you know, we live in a world that would lead us to believe that all
religions lead to the same place. Many would insist that it doesn't matter
what you believe because ultimately, we all die and go to heaven (90% of
Americans believe this). However, my observation is that many of our
mainstream institutions of higher education speak out of both sides of
their mouths. At the same time they teach that all roads lead to God --
they often offer a disclaimer in regard to Christianity. They warn about
the close-minded teachings of the Bible... after all, it has so many errors
and contradictions and focuses too much on the supernatural... in short,
the Bible is not something intellectual people can place [their] faith in.
I would disagree wholeheartedly!

Peculiar: Over 1/3 of the world has based their eternity on the Bible.
Are we all so shallow? Or is there a vacuum in my life that all the
relationships, money, prestige, etc cannot fill but the love of Jesus can?

How is it that the Bible can be so easily discredited by so-called
intellectuals... and yet millions are reading it and following the
teachings of Jesus Christ? Could it be that Rick Warren's quote is true?
”Some people are so open-minded that their brains fall out.”

In a court of law, we are not required to prove that something actually
took place. It is impossible to prove that anything in history has taken
place. Instead, we must look at the past through the eyes of reliable
witnesses and evidence on-hand. These witnesses must simply prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the evidence is legitimate. With this in mind, let us
take a look at the first 4 books in the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John, and let us consider if these eye-witnesses to the life of
Jesus Christ are indeed reliable testimonies (records) of someone/something
that actually happened in history just over 2,000 years ago.

I would argue that the Gospels are a reliable record of actual events
and actual conversation. If this is true, then what the Bible says about
Jesus is true. If what the Bible says about Jesus is true, then in fact, He
must be the Son of God based upon the claims He made, the miracles He
performed, and the fact that he was crucified on a cross and later He
raised from the dead. If all of this is true, then what Jesus said about
the rest of the Bible and God must be true as well.

Although this may be considered simple from our intellectual friends,
we have a choice to make. We can put our trust in a man with a PhD or we
can put our trust in the man who healed the sick, raised the dead, and
predicted his own death and resurrection. (For me personally, I think I'll
go with the guy who raised from the dead.)

Serious Question: Can we trust what these books say about Jesus?

Lesson from History: Whenever we talk about historical events, we
cannot prove what has happened in the past, it is not a matter of proving,
it is a matter of looking at the evidence. Like in the courtroom
illustration given earlier, you present evidence and the jury uses that
evidence to come to a conclusion. So, whenever we look at the past, we must
ask what the evidence is pointing toward. (The trustworthiness of any
account is based on the reliability of evidence, not the proof.)

Illustration: One of my coworkers comes up to me and tells me they had
attended my church's Christmas Pageant. I tell him that I didn't see him
there, so he wasn't there. He shows me the bulletin from the program, but
he could have swiped that before or after the fact. “I have the recorded CD
of the pastor's message.” (still doesn't prove anything, that wasn't
available till after) “I saw your friend Spencer, he will tell you I was there!” (he could have asked Spencer to lie about it)

Science reminds us that you can only prove what is observable and
repeatable. You cannot observe what has happened in the past so you make
decisions based upon the evidence available to you in the present.

The second step in proving the reliability of history: When drawing
conclusions about evidence, probability takes precedence over possibility
(We must look at what is most probable -vs- what is possible.)

Back to our illustration: My coworker could have stolen or forged one
of the church's bulletins. He could have stolen the pastor's CD. He could
have even convinced my friend Spencer to lie for him. These things are
indeed possible. But what is probable, is that my coworker was at church
for the Paegent.

This might be why in legal terms we speak of Probable Cause rather than
Possible Cause.

Another Illustration: You are sitting at a stoplight, when a car behind
you locks on his brakes and slams into the back of your car. The front of
his car has wedged under the back of yours, lifting your rear wheels off
the pavement.

The police come. The man driving the second car claims that you
suddenly put your car into reverse and backed into him! True, this is
possible. It is also possible that a helicopter with a giant magnet flew
overhead, picked up your car and dropped it on top of the other car!
Now, in light of the evidence presented (skid marks matching his car,
no skid marks matching yours, your car on top of his ...)what is the
PROBABLE cause of the accident? (I'd say the other driver didn't use his
brakes soon enough and wound up underneath your car)

As I stated earlier, you can not prove anything from history, simply because proof is a term used in science and math for things that you can observe the result and repeat the action getting the same result.

Example: My friend Mr. Van Ostrand likes to take small chips of dry ice and put them with a small amount of water into a closed two liter soda pop
bottle. He observed that doing so creates carbon dioxide gas. He also
observed that doing so inside of a closed two liter bottle will create
enough pressure inside the bottle that within a few minutes the bottle
explodes!

Mr. Van Ostrand explained to me what he did, what he observed and how I
could duplicate his experiment. From Mr. Van Ostrand's experience I not only got a wonderful lesson about the explosive pressure that can be created by
carbon dioxide, but also a good lesson in safety practices and how to keep
from blowing a finger off. (drop the bottle and get AWAY)

History cannot be proven because it cannot be duplicated.

Like the court of law, we must rely on determining which resources are
the most trustworthy. The question then is, how do you determine whether an
ancient manuscript is trustworthy?

1. You look at the actual manuscript, determine its date of writing and
how widely it was distributed (how many copies are there)

2. What do you know about the author of the manuscript? (is this person
reliable, do they have a motive for their writings, were they paid by
someone to write it, etc)

Most of us during our High School education had the joy(??) of studying
Ancient Roman History. You will have likely read something that sounded a
bit like this:

Caesar realized that he could not win power without a royal army, so he made himself pro-council of Gall, a region of present-day France. In his 10 years as pro-council, Caesar brought all of Gall under Roman rule and showed his superior ability as a military leader. Caesar issued written reports about his campaigns and victories to keep the people of Rome informed. Students of Latin can still read these clearly detailed reports in what is known as the Gallic Wars

Where did the textbook get these details?

(story continues)

Pompey meanwhile grew jealous of Caesar's rising fame. To head off his rival, Pompey made himself sole pro-council. Then he persuaded the senate to order Caesar to return to Rome without his army.

Where did they get their information?

Answer: From ancient manuscripts.


Many High School history texts refer to the Gallic Wars. It is
interesting to me that this work is a manuscript with only ten known copies
to exist, and the author was hired (and presumably paid) by the emperor to
write a history about him! (can you see where there might be a just a
little narcissistic favoritism going on here?) Also, of the ten copies, the
earliest copy is from around 900 AD!

Question: Would you expect Rome to keep a good record of history? Would
you expect those records to be preserved? Would you expect these documents
would be considered so valuable to the empire that they would do all they
could to preserve them?

Question: Would you expect anyone to keep such detailed records and
protect with any measurable quality the writings about a common man from
Galilee, a carpenter's son? He didn't lead any campaigns, he didn't write
anything, and yet there are four detailed accounts of his life.

Reality: We have more written records about the life of Jesus Christ
than we have about the Roman emperors of his day!

Roman history is based on a few copies of records nearly 900 years old.

The Gospel manuscripts (unlike the Gallic Wars) we don't have ten
copies -- we have hundreds of copies!! Some of the earliest pieces of the
Gospel writings do not come from 900 years after the fact, they come from
within the lifetimes of people who were THERE. (some from as little as 10
years after Jesus' death)

Why in the world would there be such emphasis on the life of one Jewish
carpenter? Even if he was a fake, even if he was a rebel, even if he was a
prophet ... why in the world would there be such desire for detailed
information about a three year span of one man's life?

These records have survived through the ages, not because of Roman
protection, but because of its historical value.

A critic might ask: But aren't those copies of copies? What about the
mistakes and errors that would come from copying these manuscripts?

Good news: Unlike secular history (if only there was the documentation
for any other time in ancient history like there is for the time of the
Gospels!), there are amazingly few discrepancies in the Gospel accounts.
True, there are some differences, but few discrepancies.

Pastor Walt teaches that in Bible College, an example of the
differences that you might face as a student learning Textual Criticism are
things such as:

[in] the Bisintine manuscripts, the text says 'spirit' while the Western manuscripts say 'Holy Spirit'. Which one did the author intend? This is one of the toughest areas to have to face in Textual Criticism!

Reality: If you were to take a letter and copy it, you might make a
mistake, maybe transpoes a letter, but by the end of the day you've not
changed the meaning of the letter. It doesn't suddenly mean something else
entirely. And if it did, wouldn't you dispose of it?

Using an example I read somewhere, let us say that you were to receive
an letter from a reliable source. Maybe Western Union comes to your door
with a telegram (I know, I don't think they still DO telegrams, but for the
sake of my example ... lets assume they do!) The telegram informs you:
You haew von a milion dolars.

The sentence has 23 letters and four misspellings. There are plenty of
errors there. But I bet you could figure out what you needed to do next
don't you? Hope they sent directions to pick up your check!

The Western Union people could have likely had several people copy your
message. But by the end of the day, it doesn't change the meaning of what
is said. In that sentence, errors make up just over 13% of the total
message. But you still understand what it is telling you. You can go to a
bookstore and purchase a Greek New Testament. The footnotes will give you
all the variant readings (singular -vs- plural, etc but nothing significant
in regards to either history or theology)

Because of the volume of copies available, it is very easy to check
from one to another to find where errors may have occurred in the
duplication process and errors could be weeded out.

The thing is, if it is that obvious that the Gospel manuscripts are
accurate, why don't secular historians use them as a historical reference?
If they were recorded by more reliable sources, been more widely
distributed and more accurate, surely they would be invaluable as a
reference tool?

Problem: There is a prejudice against things that are supernatural.
Historians give little or no credit for things that happen by means they
cannot either comprehend or explain. Without my faith, I would find it hard
to believe that a man could walk on water. It would be nearly impossible to
conceive that a multitude of over 5,000 people could be fed on the contents
of a little boy's lunch pail -- and have baskets full of leftovers after
the fact!
The blind are cured of their blindness?
The lame are told to get up and walk?
The dead are brought back to life?
All four of the Gospel manuscripts give credence to such supernatural
acts, and so secular historians cannot trust them.

This however, is not a problem with the Gospels. It is a problem with
our society's orientation. I admit, I've never seen a blind person's eyes
being cleared after having mud rubbed in them and a command to go and wash. I've not seen a man walk across the waves of a sea without even getting the hem of his garments wet. My Mom, nor my Grandma or anyone else I know hasn't seen it happen. The secular historian would surmise that if it cannot happen in the present day, it could not have happened in the past. I on the other hand would surmise that if the man who walked on water was also the man who told the lame to walk and made the blind to see, and told the dead man to Come Forth! then maybe it wasn't something wrong with the accuracy of the manuscripts. Maybe it was something right about the man who proclaimed to one and all that He was the only son of the Living God.

I've not seen these miracles performed. But I know a man who has fallen
from the roof of a five story building. The doctors told his wife to gather
his family and make sure his affairs were in order, because there was
little hope of his surviving the night. With nearly every bone in his body
broken, several organs injured and his head swollen as large as the pillow
it rested upon. His family gathered and the word went out to their
community ... Pray. The man not only survived. He was in church less than
nine days later giving praise to the King of kings and Lord of lords who
had given his life back to him! He wasn't rolled out on a gurney. He wasn't
wheeled out in a wheelchair. He walked out of the hospital and straight to
the church he and his wife were attending. I have not only met this man. He
is my Pastor, mentor and I am blessed to consider him a personal friend.
Walt Weaver.

Question: Why would you take the word of someone who was paid by a
Roman emperor and who wrote history for that emperor over the record of the
Gospels? Tasadus was a fine historian. But Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
each died a martyr's death because of their witness and what they had
written. Even under the threat of being martyred, ten of eleven disciples
were willing to die for what is recorded in these manuscripts. But
so-called intellectuals would tell us that these Gospels cannot be trusted
because the writers experienced and believed in the supernatural?

To reject the Gospels is comparable to saying, "I don't believe the
Holocaust happened." Even though we have pictures, witnesses, written
records and even still a couple of survivors. It is hard to believe that
people could have that sort of hatred of someone. I have never experienced
that sort of hatred of someone simply because of their ethnicity or
beliefs. My family has never experienced that sort of hatred. But sadly, we
know it has happened and we weep for those who died.

I guess I will simply conclude that the world will tell you their
reasons why they do not accept the witness of the Gospel manuscripts. They
will tell you that any reasonable thinking person cannot believe in fairy
stories. But I will tell you that these aren't fairy stories. That the
supernatural is actually quite natural. And history has shown us that there
is a man who died so that we might live. You can read about it if you want
to.

Who's In Charge Here??

Have you ever noticed there are times in life when you just can't seem to get ahead? Bills threaten to drown you, your car needs more work than its worth and you just can't seem to catch a break at work.

I mean, goodness knows you're trying! You're cranking everything you have into doing your job, you're doing everything you can at home to make sure that the house is clean, the yard looks just right (wouldn't want to upset those neighbors with a seedy yard now would you?), and you're running around like a chicken with its head cut off because everything and everyone seems to be counting on you and the world will just spin off its axis if you even stop moving for five minutes!

My Pastor calls this Living Without Margins. Like when you're driving down the interstate and there's a construction zone with barricades and the flashing yellow lights to one side, a speeding semi-truck on the other and you're driving fast to keep the guy behind you from hitting you. You feel like there are just inches between you and the barricades ... and the truck ... and the guy behind you. You have no margin. If there's an unseen bump in the road, or if that semi moves even an inch closer ... POW! you're either off the road, or under the truck or smashed into that idiot behind you.

All of a sudden, where ever it is you were going -- that all important task that you were needing to do -- doesn't seem all that important does it?

Many people, including many Christians, live their lives like they are the ones completely responsible for getting everything done. For making enough money to pay all the bills and get your family all those things they feel they just have to have. The thing is, God already owns it all. He has simply blessed us with the ability to use some of it for us to live on.

There's a little boy who gets a weekly allowance of $1. (yeah, I know ... $1 isn't much in today's currency. Bear with me, this is one of those parable things Jesus used to teach, Okay?) His parents wanted to teach him to tithe and to save. So rather than giving him his allowance as a $1 bill, they gave him ten dimes. Each week, he took one dime with him to church and put it in the offering, he put a second dime into his piggy bank, and he could do what he wanted with the other eight dimes! He thought this was pretty cool! He had eight dimes. He could buy candy with them if he wanted to, or a toy or, well, whatever he wanted. He was rich! WHEEEEEEEEEE!!

As the boy grew up, his parents increased his allowance. Even though the boy had more money, his parents made sure that he still put 10% in the offering for his tithe, and 10% into his savings. (Granted, by now Mr. Piggy wasn't quite up to the task, so Mom had taken him to the local bank and opened a savings account) But he still had 80% of his money for what he wanted to do with it.

Then the boy was old enough that his parents decided that rather than giving him an allowance, they would allow him to get himself an after-school job. Each week, the boy would bring home his pay check and with his parents instruction he opened a checking account. So the pay check went into the checking account, the boy wrote a check for his tithe and he put 10% into his savings.

The boy grows some more, and is now a young man. Like most young men, he sees things he'd like to have. He is also gaining more financial responsibilities. His after-school job lead him to his career and he is out on his own.

Daily life gets a little stressful, but the boy young man continues as he was raised, he tithes and he saves, and lives on the remaining 80%. Yeah, there are times when things get a little stressful. It would be nice to have just a little bit more money. So, one day when the young man is making a choice about spending money he thinks, "Well, Pastor says that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He doesn't need MY money." and he starts using his tithe money for other things. But he still puts money into his savings, because you never know when you'll need that for something like an emergency.

Time passes. The young man takes on more and more responsibilities in his work. He meets a wonderful woman and they get married. Now there are more bills, and there's a mortgage payment and there are expenses that he'd never had before. More and more, the man is putting less and less into that savings account. His tithe? He's not tithed in years.

I'm not telling you this story to say that people who don't tithe and who don't save are evil. I'll fully admit that there are times when my own tithe doesn't make it to the offering and the only reason I save regularly is that wonderful invention called "payroll deduction". But let us all consider: Part of the reason God wants us to tithe, aside from that money being used to further His kingdom, is because it teaches us to live with margin. To put our priorities on something other than ourselves.

Malachi 3:10 teaches us that God wants us to let Him show us how He will bless us!

Malachi 3:10"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it."

Now, let me be clear here. I am not speaking of what is called the "prosperity gospel", where if you give God your 10%, He'll give you a trunk full of cash. I'll be honest, to me that is nothing more than white-washed greed trying to pass itself off as righteousness.

What I am talking about is the fact that God will bless your life in ways you've never considered possible. Some of it will be financial. But most of it will be little things (the roast you needed for your groceries was on sale for an absurdly low price or just finding a good parking spot or someone actually offering to hold a door when you've got your hands full).

Too many times in our lives, we feel like we are the ones making all the decisions, and everything has to be done a particular way. But let me remind you (and me), the one who is in charge has been around a whole LOT longer than we have. And He'll be around a LONG time after we've left this earth to join Him in heaven.

How about the implications of a dualistic versus and hierarchical universe?

It all started with one of those comments you post on Facebook:

I wrote:Ron is pondering his next blog post. Any thoughts on what you'd like to pick my brain about? (fair warning, be careful what you ask for I just might write it!)

My friend Carl replied:How about the implications of a dualistic versus and hierarchical universe?

I don't think Carl thought I'd do it ... but here goes:

Readers Digest version of what Carl is talking about:

The following is quoted from Kheper.net:

Dualism assumes the existence of two distinct principles of being in the universe: spirit and matter, or soul and body. This was the basic understanding behind the teachings of Plato, according to which the physical world of sense phenomena is but a poor reflection or image of the true spiritual world; sense things being mere shadows of the eternal spiritual things or "Ideas". The goal of the philosopher was thus the elevation of consciousness, and the contemplation of these pure spiritual forms. Hence philosophy in its origin was a much more mystical or spiritual thing than it is today

Descartes Mind-Body Dualism in the current philosophical understanding of the term originates from one man, the seventeenth century French philosopher Rene Descartes. It was Descartes who gave the world that much quoted utterance "I think, therefore I am". He was also the one who popularised the idea of reality as a dichotomy of matter (extended or spatial substance) and spirit (thinking substance, including God). This form of mind-body dualism became known as "Cartesian Dualism", after the Latin pronunciation of Descartes (Cartes)

Translation: Dualism is the view of the universe (you, me, humanity, the cosmos and everything that can be found within it) that we are made up of the "spiritual" and the "physical." This view, while in some regards CAN include some tenets of Christian theology (God is after all spiritual, but he is also physical, in the form of Jesus) I personally feel the Dualistic view is much too broad and intended to offer the option of "God as you understand him", be it Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim, Taoist, Wiccan, Celtic or Native American. We can all agree that there is the physical universe, its the spiritual aspect which the Christian needs to understand more clearly.

This next quotation is taken from the website of the Armagh Observatory which was founded in 1790. It is taken from a lecture by noted astronomer Ernst J. Öpik.

I intend to say a few words about communication and isolation in our hierarchical universe. Hierarchic means that the universe is built in stages; various solid bodies, the planets, the quite solid suns. Then the solar systems are joined into stellar systems, stellar systems make up galaxies and so forth, and this happens by interposition of so-called "empty space" - actually a background space which may, or may not, be filled uniformly with something else. Because interposition of this space. To the layman the strange thing is that higher order systems are always of lower density. It is self evident that it must be this because we put nothing in between. And this goes on from stage to stage and the big question, not solved yet, is "where does it end?"

I think, though he doesn't mention it in the text of this article, while Professor Öpik speaks of the building blocks of the larger universe, that the theory holds true when you turn away from the telescope and turn to the microscope, that our world is made up of building blocks as well, just much smaller ones.

The feel however, that I got from both pieces was an exclusion of the (pardon the PC terminology) an Intelligent Creator. To me, it feels a bit like "Well, we've got this all figured out how we think it should be, but what do we do with this extra bit? This IC? Trim it off? Right-O!" And off God goes to the scrap heap.

True, the Dualistic view does allow for something greater than ourselves, but it still leaves soooooooo many questions unanswered, while at the same time giving so many answers without asking questions about where they came from.

The point I want you, my friend, to take away from this is: Yes, the universe has a spiritual as well as a physical aspect. The physical, we see around us every day. We can see the spiritual as well, but we need to understand what that spiritual aspect is. And for those of you that know me, I think you know where I'm going with this, but I will say it anyway.

This spiritual aspect of which I speak, the Intelligent Creator, the "thinking substance", the King of kings and Lord of lords are all one and the same. It was God who created the building blocks of the hierarchical universe, and it was God who made us both physical and spiritual, and He did this all for His glory.

The Difference Between Dog Theology and Cat Theology

I'm sure you've likely heard the joke:

Question: What is the difference between a dog's theology and a cat's theology?

Answer: A dog perceives that you are the one who feeds them, takes care of them, grooms them and gives them a home, so they believe that you must be god! A cat on the other hand, sees that you feed them, take care of them, groom them and give them a home ... because THEY must be god.

Yes, my friends will see that this is indeed a joke in line with my taste in jokes. But for me, this one goes a bit deeper.

The dogs are those who completely trust that what you tell them is truth. This is how we should be!

[Jesus said to his disciples] "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." John 14:1

I know, there are times when its mighty hard to trust in someone you don't see standing right in front of you, here in this place we mistakenly call "reality". Those of you with dogs, have you ever noticed how without seeing you coming, they know that you ARE coming? My wife and I have a dog named Rosie. Rosie isn't exactly the sharpest crayon in the doggy crayola box.

She is strong however. In the ten years we've owned Rosie, she's broken two chains and slipped out of her collar so many times I can't recall. If she does this during the day when I'm at work, when I come home in the evening, she's sitting at the end of our driveway waiting for me. If she does this in the night when we're sleeping, when I come out in the morning to feed her, she's sitting at the front door looking up like "Here I am! Ready to face the day!" I finally bought a chain that can also be used for things like towing cars and a collar I'm fairly sure could double as a safety harness for circus performers, so Rosie hasn't slipped out of these ... yet. (I would have included a .jpg of the wiley beast, but I realized that I don't have that one in my photobucket account)

Rosie also likes to do something I find interesting. I'll come out to feed her, I'll put the food and water in their respective dishes, and I'll move out of the way so she can get to them. But, Rosie won't go to her food until I have taken a moment to pet her. So, I'll give her ears a tossing and pat her sides, and she'll be happy as a clam and turn to her food. This only proves a problem when its wet out and I'm in my work clothes. I've had a couple of occasions where an overly joyful dog has forced a wardrobe change.

Cats on the other hand, are in it for what they get out of it. So, if you're going to witness to someone who is cat-like, you need to show them the value of what you are offering.

"In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you....And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." John 14:2,3

Not just that God will provide a place for us, but that He loves us so much that he wants to!

Growing up, my Mom had a small menagerie of cats. At one point, we had ten of the furry critters living in our house. One of the oldest cats was an old tom Mom had named Sam. Mom had found Sam in downtown Indianapolis one evening as she was getting off work. Back in that day, there were very few residential buildings in downtown Indy. So it was not a question that this dark gray ball of fuzz, who at the time was a barely weened kitten, was most likely abandoned by someone.

Now Mom used to ride the bus to and from work, and it was against their regulations for you to bring any pets on board. Thankfully, my Mother was the sort of woman who carried a purse that you could feed third world nations out of. Mom decided she would simply slip the kitten inside her purse and pray that it would stay quiet for the 40 minute ride home. As if he understood what was going on, as soon as Mom put Sam in her purse, he settled right in. In amongst Mom's make-up, tissues, and sundry purse stuff, little Sam wrapped himself into a little ball and went fast to sleep.

Once Mom had Sam home however, there were issues. Sam was a small kitten, and Mom had two other cats (Foggy and Mittens) and a big slobbery cocker spaniel. (yeah I know, cockers are small dogs ... but to Sam, Godfrey was HUGE) So, Sam would hide under the kitchen sink. It took weeks for Mom to coax Sam out to eat food. But with time, Sam came out. Because my Mom showed Sam that all she wanted to do was to love him (granted, the dog would always be a problem, but Sam learned many tricks to deal with Godfrey).

So this is how we all are with God. We're either dogs who immediately accept the love of our Father, or we're cats who need to be shown God's love in such a way, that we're willing to trust Him, no matter how loud the dog's barking in the other room.

On the death of Martin Bell

It is with deep sadness that I mark the passing of a dear family friend, Fr. Martin Bell. Fr. Bell was an Episcopal priest (as well as author, musician and even a former private investigator!) who passed through my family's life when I was a boy.

Martin showed me that some things were not always as they appeared. In the mid 1970's and early 1980's, when every Episcopal priest I knew was fairly conservative, Martin always seemed to have a more relaxed attitude. His was the first church service I'd attended where an instrument OTHER than an organ was used in the service, he played guitar, along with his son Mark -- and quite well I might add!

It is from one of Martin's stories that I have taken my online persona of Hatfield. The Legend of Hatfield tells the story of a martial arts master and his trials against Jennings and his minions. To me, the story is an allegory of the Christian's walk, and our trials against Satan and his minions. The story also depicts God as a great silver wolf whom Hatfield is in the process of seeking. Hatfield learns that finding God is not a destination in itself, it is how we live our lives ... and God then finds US.

Rest in Peace my dear friend. And say Hello to the Wolf for me!

Belief + Choice = Situation

There are times in all of our lives when we make bad choices. Invariably, these choices are based in our beliefs, and the two affect our situation.

Not sure what I mean? I'm sure we all know someone like "Walter". Walter finds the woman of his dreams, and he's so excited to have her in his life that he up and marries her at the first chance he gets! They run off to Vegas and get a quickie wedding at one of those cheesy drive-through chapels and go off to live their life of marital bliss. The problem is, apparently his happy bride isn't quite all that happy for some reason Walter cannot figure out. They fight about the same things Walter fought about with his last wife, and so (not so surprisingly) Walter decides that it just wasn't meant to be and he divorces her.

Walter seems to think that if he can find just the perfect woman to marry, that he will be happy. There's only one real problem with Walter's thinking. Yes ladies, I can hear you all the way over here ... Walter is still in the marriage!

Walter is making choices thinking that that alone will affect his situation. Every time he doesn't like his situation, he makes another choice expecting a different outcome. But he's not getting the picture is he? His belief that he is the sole person to decide his happiness leads to his choices of mates; which in turn leads to his situation of getting divorced.

I'm sure we're all familiar with Proverbs 3:5-6 which tells us:
Proverbs 3:5-6: 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

You have to understand what it is that you believe before you can make any changes in the choices that you make, and in turn the situation you find yourself in.

Lets look at another fictional person. I'll call her "Marie". Marie grew up in a household where she was never shown any sort of caring. Her father abused her emotionally and told her that no one would ever want to love her. Sadly, Marie bought it hook, line and sinker. So, when in school a classmate showed her any small amount of interest, Marie was smitten. "See Daddy!" she'd say to herself, "They love me!" And Marie would do whatever it took to feel loved. But, as the book title says, He's just not that into you, and the classmate would be gone.

The problem is, each time this happens, we develop scars. Walter has scars, Marie has scars, I have scars, and I'm sure that many reading this out there do too.

Jesus teaches us that He loves us, and will never leave us. No matter what our situation, whether you're a Walter or a Marie, Jesus loves you no matter what you have been told. You ARE lovable! So, if you change what you believe, and see that you are worthy of being loved, then you will be able to truly love someone as Christ would have you love them. And changing your belief will change your choices and your situation

Also, if your beliefs are out of whack, it can have as much of an impact as your choices. If you look at King Solomon (think its in 1st Kings?) we read how God had commanded the Children of Israel not to marry outside of their faith. The intent was because these pagans would draw the Israelites away from their faith. But King Solomon believed that he knew better. He believed that if, as king, he married the daughters of other kings, he could protect his people. After all, if you have a treaty with a kingdom because you've taken one of their daughters into your household, they wouldn't attack you because that would be attacking their child!

So, thinking this way, King Solomon took 700 brides from the kingdoms surrounding Israel. (as well as like 300 concubines and other hangers-on... but I digress) He believed that he knew better than God. And this was Solomon, who was blessed by God to be the wisest man in history!

Sadly, it didn't work out as Solomon had planned. Eventually, there was civil war within Israel. The thousands that Solomon had intended to protect from the hands of pagans died at the hands of their own people. With the people weakened by this, it became easy for the other kingdoms to attack Israel and take them away into bondage.

I wonder how it might have been if Solomon had used the wisdom that God had blessed him with, and listened to his own words:
Proverbs 3:5-6: 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.

Not even sure what title to give this ...

Where do I begin?

Okay, I didn't watch all of the Oscars the other night. But part of what I did see I really need to comment on.

For those who saw even less of what I saw of the Oscars, actor Sean Penn accepted the Best Actor award for portrayal of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in California. During his acceptance speech, Mr. Penn commented about a group of protesters who were outside the ceremony protesting Hollywood's portrayal of homosexuals in films such as Milk. Mr. Penn seemed to verbally shake his fist at Christians as if to tell us that whether we liked it or not, homosexuals were going to get equal recognition under the law.

Speaking only from my own perspective, I have never had an issue with homosexuals expecting equal rights (as far as things like health coverage from employers, insurance rates ... whatever). As citizens of the United States (or other countries as far as their laws will allow), they deserve things like knowing that those they care about are taken care of if they need to be.

BUT...

(and here I am trying to think carefully before I type; I know what I will say is likely to offend someone, but I wish to make it as LEAST offensive as possible. I just know that isn't likely to happen)

My views are from the Christian Right (in this case 'right' referring to conservative beliefs, not that I think we're correct about everything). Contrary to what the protesters outside the Oscars may have said, God loves everyone. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and yes, Homosexuals. God doesn't hate anybody. He hates the sin we all have in our lives. But no matter how you try to sugar coat it, no matter how you try to make it seem like something that it is not, homosexuality goes against everything we as Christians are expected to hold dear.

Human sexuality, within the relationship of a heterosexual marriage is one of the most beautiful expressions of God's love for us. But outside of that relationship whether it is a heterosexual couple who are not married, or it is a homosexual couple, there's no other way to say it: That relationship is sin in God's eyes.

I don't hate homosexuals. Three men whom I respect and love as brothers are very open about their preferences. They are gay. This doesn't mean that I love them any less. It does mean that I am very sad. When I've tried to speak to any of them, the general response is along the lines of "Well that's fine for you. But this is what's right for me." The problem is, its not an issue of it being right or wrong for US. Its what is right or wrong for God.

These three are not the only gay men I know. These three are simply the only three that I would consider friends. Or more to the point, friends who's opinions I care about. One of them is a supervisor in my workplace. He's a fun goofy man, a HUGE "Trekkie" and just the type of person that no matter your orientation, he's just easy to get along with.

The other two were in a committed relationship with each other, but because the state where they live does not recognize homosexual unions, as far as the state was concerned, they were just roommates sharing a house. I'll call them "T" and "J". Together, T and J owned a small business. T was the more somber quiet sort. If he liked you, he could talk your ear off. But otherwise he could be very business like. J was the more flamboyant 'stereotype'. Used expansive gestures, spoke with a lilt to his voice. Sadly, I found out from my Mother a couple of years ago that J, who had contracted HIV several years prior had died from complications of HIV/AIDS. T wound up losing the house they had purchased together, because the state didn't recognize their relationship and so gave proceeds for J's insurances to his blood family.

There are those among the Christian community who do not want ANY sort of recognition by the state for any sort of homosexual union. While I do agree that MARRIAGE is a union that is reserved for ONE man and ONE woman. I believe that marriage was not intended to be an institution of the state for the disposition of financial rights and familial responsibilities. Marriage is a union set for by God for the raising of children and sharing the loving relationship between a man and woman that most closely models God's relationship with US, his children.

I myself would have no problems if gay couples had (for lack of a better description) a civil union. A contract recognized by the state which would allow for things like the distribution of properties or the imparting of things like Powers of Attorney in legal affairs. I mean, given my "druthers", I don't see the need for it. Legally, you can empower whomever you choose to handle your legal affairs, even a stranger you meet on the street outside your lawyer's office. For things like distribution of properties (like the example of T and J's house) its a simple matter of having the purchase agreement list both names and have it stipulated in your "Will" how you wish for such issues to be handled.

I do not hold with the idea that some people are just "born that way." I have friends who were abused as children. Statistics tell us that abused kids will more likely grow up to become abusers themselves. That doesn't mean that they have no choice. There are options for those in the homosexual lifestyle if they choose to leave that life. Exodus International helps thousands leave that lifestyle. There are choices.

God does not hate Gays. God does not hate Lesbians. God does not hate heterosexuals-who-don't-do-what-HE-leads-us-to-do. God loves all of us. He wants ALL of us to live our lives following Him. But we keep trying to pick and choose how we're going to do that. But we can't do that. Its His way, or not at all.

Sadly, many will choose not at all.

Salt and Light (a look at Matthew 5:13-16)

Matthew 5:13 'Ye are the salt of the earth; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and to be trodden under foot of men.'

These days, most of us know salt as a condiment, something to add flavor to cooking. But in the time Matthew wrote this, salt was extremely valuable. Kings paid armies in salt, it was used to preserve foods. So Jesus saying, 'Ye are the salt of the earth ...' he was saying that you are something of high value, not to be wasted. But if something happens to you that destroys your value (your saltiness) how are you to be made salty again? So we are to PRESERVE our relationship with Jesus, and not let it be wasted by things we might do trying to pursue other 'savours'.

Matthew 5:14-16 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Have you ever been driving along at night, and see those search light type lights sweeping across the sky? The kind that are used for things like store grand openings or to draw your attention to some event like a movie premiere. This light is saying to you, "Come look and see! This is something you don't want to miss! Hey you! COME HERE!!!" Jesus is telling his disciples that we are to be the light that draws others to Him. We are to draw others' attention to Christ. As a child, I read verse 14 of this part and thought to myself, "Well of COURSE you can't hide a city on a hill!" I completely misunderstood the point. Jesus was pointing out that a city wants to be where it is easy to see. Granted, it can often times draw those wishing to attack the city, but more importantly, it draws those seeking the city. Merchants, travelers, farmers with crops to sell in the city's market place. A city needs to be seen. And while candles get less and less use these days, I think an accurate translation of verse 15 might say something like, 'if you want to use your lamp, don't leave it unplugged. Plug it in and put it on the table where everyone will be able to see it.'

Like the spotlight, Jesus wants us to draw others to Him. Shine the light for others to see, live your life in such a way that not only do people know that you are a Christian, they see by your life that being a Christian is something that (if they aren't already themselves) they would find Truth in.

Yes, we know that it is by Grace through which we are saved, and that our works cannot get US into heaven. But by our actions, we can attract others to the message that we offer! Something I've said for a number of years is that while it is very true that "faith without works is dead, but works without faith doesn't really do all that much either."

There are also Christians out there that will take their spotlight, and rather than try to use it to draw others to Jesus, will use it to shine their light on what others are doing wrong. We aren't supposed to compare others to ourselves. After all, compared to Jesus, we're ALL as sinful as the worst resident of Sodom. There's just no way that our own actions can justify our passing judgement on others. So, we are to use our lives as a beacon drawing others to Christ.

This should offend someone ...

I originally posted this on the message boards on AotC MUD, and thought to share it here. It was originally written when inspired by a message about the Reverend Billy Graham on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

In honor of the Reverend Billy Graham's 90th birthday today, I'd like to share some thoughts that came to me when his son, the Reverend Franklin Graham was being interviewed on the radio program Primetime America on the Moody Broadcasting Network.

They were interviewing Franklin on the occasion of his Dad's 90th birthday, and having been asked what one thing would Billy say about today's church (Christianity as a collective whole) that was not true back when he started preaching in the 1950's.

Franklin only hesitated a brief minute before responding that the church today was too fearful of causing offense among those who come for services. People who feel that they can get to heaven by doing the most volunteer work for the poor, or can support a church financially don't want to hear that it is not by our WORKS that we are saved, but by God's grace through Jesus Christ.
Today, people want to come to church to hear a topical sermon, something to tickle the ears and that has 'relevance' to their situation and lives. They don't want to ponder the fact that we are all sinners in need of a Savior's love.

The problem is, we ARE all sinners in need of a Savior. The struggle doesn't end when you say the Sinner's prayer. Each day of our lives, for as long as we live, we deal with the imperfections of our human bodies. We must daily depend on the grace of a God that loves us more than it is possible for us to love ourselves or others.
The love of a Savior who left the Father's side, and came down here on earth and took our likeness, and did the one thing we could not do for ourselves. He died for us.

There's no way we could WORK hard enough.
There's no way we could spend enough money.
There's no way we could pray enough prayers till the heavens rang with our utterances.
There is only one way.

Romans 10:9-10 tells us 'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus,and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead,thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.'

The NRV (New Ronald Version) would read that If you believe it in your heart, and tell everyone around you; and if you confess to Jesus that you are a sinner and wish to be forgiven, then you will receive forgiveness. Because if you accept your sin, and admit it to God, He will forgive you.

Yeah, I know. We don't like having to admit that we're not the greatest thing since sliced bread. We want to think that we're really cool. Or that at least, we're cooler than that bunch over there. But we're no better or no worse than they are. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. But do you want to know the REALLY cool part? Jesus loves us so much, that he's ready to be that Savior!

And Reverend Graham has been telling people the secret for over 50 years. And if you didn't already know it, I've just shared it with you too!