The Drama of Becoming Abraham and Isaac

In my next to last semester, I have found myself conflicted. A choice has been placed before me, to follow through with current plans or to turn aside, in faith, to something else. I have experienced so much filling and emptying the last several years: a number of dissatisfying and ephemeral jobs, deep personal friendships, lack of mentorship and guidance, satisfying ministry, future anxiety, a new addition to our family. Hopes dashed. Hopes fulfilled. All while pouring out my all before God for each morsel of direction, each crumb of hope to hold onto. This has been a difficult season, but one of deep growth.

I did not learn in seminary what I came to learn . . . but I have learned so much more. I learned my limitations (which are, sadly, many), I learned to hold my tongue, I learned to second-guess myself, I learned about covenant, I learned to love less selfishly, I learned that there are 24 hours that may be used in each day, I learned to put-off my own interests (usually) for my family's. Important lessons. Lessons that have brought me to realize that there are ministries that are more important than paid ones. All said, I am learning to become both Abraham and Isaac.

I am becoming Abraham, trusting in God's promise as I dangle my hopes and dreams over the precipice of the unknown. I place my hopes and dreams of a future career in ministry and education on the altar of God's will. I lift my flint knife to strike at the jugular of all I have believed to be his will. Yet, I know, in my deepest heart that God is sovereign and good. He will work all things to the good of those who trust in him (that is first and foremost applied to Christ, but in a secondary way to those who trust in Christ as Savior and God). Are my plans most important? Never. But what of the plans he has formed within me as he has changed my heart? They are still placed on his altar . . . in hope and expectation. He will raise up a new hope that pleases himself.

I am becoming Isaac, too. I do not struggle or cry out as the knife is raised beyond my vision. I thank God for my life and ministry, my hopes and dreams, and I seek his will, even as it appears they all may come to an end. What right have I to demand my own way? What have I to cling to but him? Praise God for this altar; this choice. His will, and not my own, be done.

It has been a long process to get me to this place. Given the choices I face now, I would have acted far more selfishly even a year ago. Scripture, life, providence, grace have all done their work. I look to my bloody King (Isaac in the deepest sense), and not to my weak arm, for vindication. May it always be so.

I leave you with lyrics from BarlowGirl's Beautiful Ending, which has affected me greatly as of late.

Oh, tragedy has taken so many.
Love lost 'cause they all forgot who You were.
And it scares me to think that I would choose my life over You
Oh, my selfish heart divides me from You
It tears us apart

So tell me what is our ending?
Will it be beautiful, so beautiful?

Oh, why do I let myself let go. . .
Of Hands that painted the stars and hold tears that fall?
And the pride of my heart makes me forget it's not me but You, that makes the heart beat
I'm lost without You, Your dying for me

So tell me what is our ending?
Will it be beautiful, so beautiful?
Will my life find me by Your side?
Your love is beautiful, so beautiful

At the end of it all, I wanna be in Your arms.

Souls and Stewardship: Do Animals Have Souls?

In his recent article, Woof'n Worship?, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. presents a case against the inclusion of animals in worship. Let me say up front that I am in full agreement with the thrust of his editorial. In support of his view, he offers eight points that are generally quite good and biblical. In his second point, however, he diverges from biblical revelation to philosophy when he says,

As the image-bearers of God, humans alone have the capacity to know and to worship the Creator. Animals reflect the glory of God, but only human beings can see the glory of God and know the Creator. Animals may possess consciousness, but they do not have souls. They lack the capacity to know the Creator.

With all due respect to Dr. Mohler (and I respect him very much), the purpose of this response will be to set the record straight on this point from a completely biblical perspective.

Scripture is completely silent on whether animals have any concept of or practical form of worship. All we can do is make educated guesses concerning the matter. In this Scripture is, by nature biased, for whatever its worth. Scripture is God's self-revelation to mankind. It concerns itself with the salvation of humans and not animals. It does not indicate that God revealed himself personally to animals or that he requires any response from them, save from their obedience to his prescribed will. There is also little indication that animals have any choice in the matter. In Genesis 1:20-25, God spoke and created animals according to all their kinds. They came obediently with God before Adam to be named according to Genesis 2:18-20. Some gave up their lives for clothing and sacrifice (Gen 3:21; 4:4). And finally, they reacted in obedience (willfully or not) to the command of God, in Genesis 9:2-3, to fear man.

Even so, not every animal follows the will of God in fear of man. We see this in the pages of Scripture (Ex 21:28-32; 1 Kings 13:23-28) as well as in our experience of the world. Yet God demands an accounting for the bloodshed of man by any animal (Gen 9:5-6). When animals kill people we have a special kind of fear because we know, instinctively, it is unnatural; it goes against the way God has ordered things.

Is it impossible for animals to see God's glory or know their creator? I think that argument is doubtful. If we believe all of Scripture as inerrant, we must come to terms with Balaam's donkey. This donkey not only saw the angel of the Lord standing on the path when Balaam didn't, but she lay down before him. Obviously, it was God's will to open the eyes and the mouth of the donkey, but the donkey acted rightly when confronted with holiness.

Dr. Mohler gets it very right when he says that animals possess consciousness. Some even possess human-like higher reasoning. It is not merely a matter of intelligence that separates humans and animals. If that were the case, the implications are that the mentally-handicapped and vegetative would not hold the image of God and would somehow be less than human. That cannot be! There must be something else as a measure beside cognitive capacity.

Dr. Mohler then makes a definitive and yet unsupported statement, "animals have no souls." Here is where the center of my disagreement with him lies. Most have heard this statement before and many believe it to be true. Where does it come from and what are its implications?

The term that we usually translate as "soul" is the Hebrew nephesh, which is related to the word for breath and wind. In Genesis 2:7, God breathed into man give him life (a soul). The soul, in this understanding, is the enlivening force within man. Yet Scripture shows no differentiation between this breath of life in man and that of animals. All creatures that live also have the same nephesh as humans (Gen 1:30). Although there are some who have adopted that there is a third or "tripartite" piece of the human person, there is no indication in Scripture that God gave any other spiritual presence or being to humans in general to separate them from the animals.

The idea that animals have no souls is actually an extra-biblical philosophical construction. The Catholic monk Thomas Aquinas believed that Aristotle's philosophy and logic were consistent with biblical revelation. He tried to square the two in his classic work, Summa Theologica. It was within this work that he introduced his "Scala Natura," or "Chain of Being". Within it, he sees animals as "sensitive" beings, operating by their senses or instincts, whereas he sees humans as rational beings operating by cognition, the realm of the soul. His Chain of Being introduced a redefinition of the soul into Christianity, a definition not developed directly from the Bible, but mainly from Aristotelian pagan philosophy. This philosophy has trickled down to us.

So, if we are to be truly biblical in our understanding of animals, we must reject Aquinas' view and admit that animals have souls. But before those people who love to anthropomorphize their pets get too excited, we must also admit that the Bible indicates a clear separation between animals and people. While not at the level of the soul, there is a difference. In Genesis 1:26, Scripture tells us, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over . . . all the earth. . .'" If we are consistent with looking at Scripture in context, we should see that in the immediate context, each time God speaks of creating man after His own image, it is directly related to man's role in rulership over the rest of creation (Gen 1:26-28; 9:2-6).

In the broader context, the role of man in rulership comes not by the nature of man as created (the mistake of the Thomists among others), but by the word of God. When God speaks, events happen and things are established. God said that man was created in his image and was set up as rulers over the rest of creation and so it came to pass. The existence of animals as pets, therefore, is not sinful - it is merely one manifestation of man's rulership over creation. Where man sins is in denying his God-mandated role in rulership and stewardship over creation, abdicating his throne, and elevating other creatures to or even above his own position.

Each mistake, to relegate animals to walking automatons, or to see them as noble equals, is to abandon God's revealed Scripture. The frequent result of the former mistake is to take advantage of and abuse stewardship over creatures that depend upon righteous human rule. The result of the latter mistake opens us to many horrendous actions including lowering humanity to an animal level, looking to animals as guides for behavior, justifying evil human behavior based on animalistic tendencies, and even improper human-animal relationships. Neither mistake is acceptable. We should agree with Dr. Mohler's overall argument: that pets do not belong in worship; but we should catch the small phrase with the huge implications. Let's not let human philosophy rob us of any part of the Gospel.

Bats Are Still Our Friends: Southern Indiana Resident Killed by Rabies

A Clark County, IN citizen has died of rabies after likely being bitten by a bat, authorities say. While 41 cases of confirmed animal rabies have been reported throughout Kentucky this year, human cases are low. Recent information was hard to find, but there were 35 confirmed human cases in 1999, none of which ended in death because each were treated with an after-bite vaccine. This particular case was only the second rabies death in Indiana in the last fifty years.

Rabies is out there, and bats are carriers. Rabies is easily transferred between bats due to their close proximity (bats are communal and huddle for warmth). The virus can also occasionally be aerosolized in the air breathed out by the animal, resulting in other nearby animals breathing in the virus. Even so, most bats do not carry the disease, and the likelihood of being bitten by a bat, even under confrontational events, is very low. I have come into contact with bats four times over the last ten years (mainly due to construction work). While careful not to touch the animals with bare skin, none of these bats even tried to bite. All were only interested in getting away.

If you find a bat roosting in your home, the best way to deal with it is to wear gloves and slowly approach the animal with a paper bag or a shoe box with a thin piece of cardboard. slip the bag opening or the shoe box over the animal and gently close bag around or slide cardboard behind the bat. Once trapped, take the animal outside and release it. Then, try to find where the animal gained entrance to your home. It may have been through an open window without a screen, or through an open attic vent, or even through an unscreened chimney cap. That opening should be dealt with quickly. Do not, under any circumstances, ever touch a bat or any wild animal (even if it appears dead) without gloves. Also, providing a bat house on your property, away from your house, can encourage problem bats to leave your home.

Why go through all this trouble instead of killing the bat? Bats are very helpful creatures that serve a unique function. They eat an incredible amount of insects each night. One Little Brown Bat can eat approximately 1,200 mosquitoes in an evening. Besides mosquitoes, bats eat moths, flies, flying beetles, and other insect pests. They also have been known to take spiders from their webs. Farmers with nearby bat populations spend much less on pesticides than those without. Bats are our friends.

Another reason to help bats is that they reproduce very slowly. Bats only produce one pup per year. Further, at least 50% of bats do not live past their first year due to: falls; impact deaths; cat, squirrel, raccoon, and Opossum predation; and disease. Those bats that do survive can live up to 33 years. They are impressive creatures. Please do your part to keep bats flying and to prevent human/bat confrontation.

The following image is of Little Brown Bats in a bat house, courtesy of Phil Myers, University of Michigan.

New Dyson Fan: A Leap Forward in Cooling Technology

Here is a really cool concept (pun intended); a fan with no blades. Dyson has released its Air Multiplier fan, taking aviation technology (turbines, airfoils) and training it for home applications. Check out how it works here.

Theology Plus: Vocations of Grace

Two nights ago I was sitting next to my wife's bedside at a local hospital as she writhed in agony, laboring to give birth to our first child. Things were not progressing as quickly as we had hoped and I had called our doctor in to talk with us about what we should be expecting.

Jenny and I had agreed that we wanted our labor and delivery to be about glorifying God and, in the process, being a witness for his grace to our doctors, nurses, aides, and any visitors we might have. We were careful in what music we would play during labor; we brought our bibles and our hymnal; and we prayed a lot. If nothing else, we wanted to bring this baby into the world in prayer and thanksgiving, remembering that this child was the answer to years of petition and desire.

Our doctor was talking with us when she was suddenly and visibly distracted. Caedmon's Call's We Give Thanks was playing on our ipod speakers. "We give thanks to you, oh God, for you have brought us here. You chose this time, you chose this place; you chose these people to show your grace. . ." She continued talking, but with a sort of puzzled look on her face. I had never asked if she was a Christian, and I didn't in that moment (as my beautiful wife was having another contraction). Our doctor already knew I was a seminary student, but in that moment there was a brief connection - a realization that there was more to this birth than merely bringing another human baby into the world. This was God's grace displayed to his own and radiating from them to the world.

As I was reading a missionary biography for a class this morning, Sam James's Servant on the Edge of History, I was struck how the author had, at one point, desired to leave the mission field in order to become a surgeon, so that he could return and care for the sick of Vietnam in the name of Jesus. He realized, however, that his was a different calling, to equip ministers there to support their own people spiritually as the communists were taking over the nation.

We who are called by the name of Jesus Christ, Christ-ians, are called to so much more than just worship services on Sunday mornings. We are called to serve fellow people as priests and prophets; to stand for and deliver the Gospel to all of fallen humanity in specific capacities. Those capacities are our "callings" or vocations. Some of us are called to the pastorate, some to the mission fields, but some of us are called to become lawyers, doctors, architects, scientists, archaeologists, nurses, politicians, mechanics, laborers, etc. Each Christian should be well educated in their faith (Christian college or even seminary is incredibly helpful), but many should take the next step and be educated in other areas, where they feel called or well suited. What a difference there would be in our nation if there were more believing Christians in politics or the judiciary, or in medicine.

There are several problems that face us Christians in selecting education. Most colleges and universities have become bastions of secularism, occasional professors even requiring assent to their views to in order to pass classes. Many "Christian" schools have compromised on core beliefs and commitments, which have opened them up to secularism or heresy in many forms. Further, many schools that have maintained their commitment to solid theological education, are not requiring (or in some cases, even offering) classes that equip young Christians for anything except the ministry or missions.

Our world is changing. We need Christians in every facet of life, shedding the light of Christ in places where the gloom of sinful darkness has been gathering. We need more doctors who minister to their patients in the name of Jesus, more public school teachers willing to push back against recent secular mandates, more lawyers and judges who are concerned not with winning cases or gaining recognition, but with applying Christ's justice in an unjust world.

Young Christian: figure out your calling. Don't figure that you must become a pastor or a missionary just because you are a Christian (also, don't think because you stay close to home that you are not doing missions). Still, pursue some sort of theological education from sound, evangelical sources. Your commitment to the Gospel in the world is only as strong as your theological worldview. If your worldview is weak, so will your faith be. Then, with your commitment to Christ firm and your calling sure, pursue education to fulfill that calling. If you feel called to study ancient Peruvian native cultures, do so in the name of, and for the glory of, Jesus Christ. If you feel called into the military, to fight for your country, fight well as a soldier of your nation and as a soldier of your God. Make sure your actions at the battlefront demonstrate your firm commitment to Christ and biblical instruction.

Vocation is calling; a calling from God, through the Holy Spirit's urging, to work out the Gospel within this fallen world in a particular way. You are salt, you are light. Go and live faithfully for your God, praising him in light of his constant faithfulness through salvation and blessing.

Problems in Micah 4:5

I have been reading and re-reading the book of Micah for an upcoming sermon, and I came across something odd in the NIV version I was reading. Micah 4:5 (NIV) says, All the nations may walk in the name of their gods; we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. That seemed a little queer in light of the surrounding context of Micah 4; that God will set up his kingdom on earth at Jerusalem and will rule all the nations, all people turning to him for wisdom. Notice verse 2, Many nations will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths. The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

So I looked at two other contemporary translations, the NASB and the ESV. Both of these said virtually the same thing. Though all the peoples walk Each in the name of his god, As for us, we will walk In the name of the LORD our God forever and ever (NASB). For all the peoples walk each in the name of its god, but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God forever and ever (ESV). All three contemporary versions seem to indicate that, despite being drawn to the wisdom of God, the people of foreign nations will still follow other gods. Further, there is not the slightest condemnation of this practice to be found within the immediate context.

So I looked at the Hebrew. Surprisingly, I interpreted the passage far different than the editors of these three acclaimed Bible versions. I read it as, "For all the people(s) shall walk, each in the name of their God, and (even?) we shall walk in the name of Yahweh, our God, forever and ever." The more natural reading of the words seems to indicate "for" and "and" conjunctions, not "though" and "but". Further, when "am" (people) is used, it usually signifies God's covenant people (Israel), not the nations or people in general, which are usually denoted as "goyim" (Gentiles). Which would lead to the translation "people" rather than "peoples".

To me, it seems that the context of the passage is making the point that all people would be drawn to God and the implication is that they would become his people. These people, not ethnic Israel, would be drawn to Israel, to God's holy mountain, and receive his instruction in faith. It leads me to speculate further, if these are not the brothers of the ruler of Bethlehem added to Israel in 5:3?

I was even more surprised when I found that the King James Version translates this passage almost the same way as I did. For all people will walk every one in the name of his God, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. I think this translation is the more accurate one, given the context.

Rather than setting up contrast - those people do those things, but we do these - the passage seems to indicate a focusing or clarifying aspect - the people will do x, even y. For all the people will walk in the name of his God (the God who has instructed at Jerusalem), we will walk even in the name of Yahweh, our God (personal revealed name, clarifying which God), forever and ever.

I would be curious what others think about this section and its interpretation. Send me some comments.

Chavez about Obama: "Smell of Sulfur Is Gone"

In a recent speech at the U.N. General Council meeting, Hugo Chavez, the Socialist "president" of Venzuela, said, "The smell of sulfur is gone. Now it smells of something else. It smells of hope." His comment refers to his repeated caricature of George W. Bush as the devil and his comments earlier this year about Obama smelling as much of sulfur as Bush. Later in the same aimless diatribe he asked the U.S. president to "come join the Socialist side. Come join the Axis of Evil over here." If one of the members of the "Axis of Evil" senses hope in Barack Obama, linking President Obama's policies to Socialism, how should we react to the policies here?

Carter on Political Disagreement and Racism

Following is a video clip of former President Jimmy Carter as he gives is speech on the innate racism that he believes underlies vehement disagreement with President Obama and, specifically, Rep. Joe Wilson's recent outburst.

There is some wisdom in what Carter said, but I certainly disagree that either Joe Wilson's or others' disagreement with Obama were racially motivated. I agree that President Obama should be treated with respect, but that does not mean we should not disagree with him where he is wrong.

We do have a problem in our nation, likely brought on by the internet: we are far too vitriolic in our disagreements and use of words. While that needs to change, I don't see this as being a racial problem. I saw many comments on forums and postings in which people said horrible things about George Bush that they would never say in public. I also wonder who these people are who "do not believe that an African American can be President"? I have not met one yet. I think most people think a person of any ethnicity is capable of the office of President. Individuals, however may or may not be, and certainly some viewpoints have more merit than others. Barack Obama has accepted a Socialistic agenda, and the American people should not have to agree with it.

Health Care Bills Play Fast and Loose with Monetary Projections

In a rare glimpse into the actual numbers related to the health plan that President Obama and congressional Democrats are trying to push through, it is clear that talk of savings is not all it was cracked-up to be, nor were the numbers ever real. In truth, they never could be. The nature of politics is such that any proposed plan, when set in motion, will balloon, costing far more than initially projected. Any "savings" that may have been planned will be sapped in the process. The more hands that these bills pass through, the more money will be whisked away into pet agendas and personal desires. Compromise almost always creates a monster.

Bringing insurance companies into the plan - necessary for the success of the bill - ensures that tax money will go to prop them up in order to cover demand for cheap or free public options and the guise of healthy competition. In reality, Obama intends for Government to prop-up our financial, industrial, and health care sectors. This is the road we have already begun to travel down. The question is why?

The answer is that Barack Obama sees government action as the controlling force of society. Government should care for each member of society and provide adequate aid for any who are hurting, falling behind, or down on their luck. By supporting those industries that, in turn, support the economy, we should be able to end the economic downturn faster, returning people to work and bringing stability. If there is relative stability, it is reasoned, people will spend more and the economy will right itself. But what if spending more is not the right thing to do?

Spending money is not a beginning nor an end in itself. It is a means. Money is a means. Money is just an agreed-upon standard of trade in which goods and services are rendered in return for a medium which can be used to obtain other goods and services. Money itself is not a good or an evil. Money is neutral. Therefore, we must look at the intentions and beliefs that underlie the act of spending money and the end goal that is desired by spending to get at the heart of the issue.

Many people have been arrested by the idea that they may become more happy by obtaining "things." I-pods, laptops, televisions, toys, cars, boats, fancier houses, etc., are all just things. We have huge corporate conglomerates and financial sectors that are devoted to the notion that consumerism - buying things to make us happy - is the ultimate goal. I was at a meeting for a well-known "big-box" store yesterday, in which customer service was pushed over and over again. It was made obvious, however, that by 'customer service' we actually meant doing whatever it took to cajole the customer into spending more money. Consumerism; the quest for things; does not bring happiness. It brings the desire for more things. It becomes an enslaving cycle. Great for the store, not great for the consumer.

You may ask, "Isn't this just Capitalism being played out?" I would suggest it is not. I would suggest that Capitalism, properly viewed, is based on self-interest, not greed. Take two parties, a store and a customer, for example. Capitalism always starts with an emphasis on the customer (or consumer if you must). This individual wants or needs a specific product or service to make his life easier, more profitable, or more fulfilling. This is neutral (this want or need could be either ethically good or bad, morally righteous or evil, but without knowing the intentions, it must be considered neutral). It is in his best interest to find said product or service. in answer to the customer's desire, the store sets up and seeks to sell to that need. In performing this service, both the customer and the store are benefited. However, as soon as the store begins to dictate what the customer should want, or when it does ethically bad/morally evil things to attract customers, Capitalism begins to morph into something else. The emphasis has shifted to that of the store, not the customer.

This is a problem with many large retailers. Rather than attempt to find out what people need and want, they dictate what that need or want should be and attempt to force customers to buy those products. Again, great for the store, not for the customer.

How does this relate to government and the health care debate? Democracy is much like Capitalism - it is devoted to the rights and the autonomy of the individual (mirroring the customer). As long as the government exists to protect that autonomy, the relationship is good. The people ask for simple things from the government - defend us from outside enemies, help us to live autonomous lives. But when the government begins to dictate what the people should want, what they should think, and what they should believe, Democracy has morphed into something else. If government leaders look to corrupted corporate structures as models to run a country, we shall see that "a nation of the people, by the people, for the people" will be replaced by something akin to "from the government to the people". This is, of course, closer to communism than democracy.

Some will argue that it is the people who want the government to provide free health care. Really? I am not convinced that, if they were thinking rightly, they would want this at all. the costs are just far too high. There will always be some who want something for nothing, but if most people sat down and figured the cost of this move, not just in money/taxes, but in the loss of free trade and eventual individual autonomy, they would quickly decide that this is the wrong route to take.

If the government provides a free health care option, or even a free insurance option, Why would anyone pay for insurance? If free plans were limited to those who were of a set, lower income, you would find people reducing income in order to meet the demands of the free program, rather than have to pay more out of pocket for a paid plan. Paid insurance, without a substantial pool of investors, would quickly become ludicrously expensive. These paid plans could not compete. Then, without competition, the free, state-run plan could set rules as it desired. It would no longer serve the needs of the people, it would expect people to serve its needs. Further, the state-run plan is not free. Someone is paying for it. Those who are making higher incomes would be paying taxes in order to fund the program. Thus, we would find those intentionally working less (or not at all) who are receiving government assistance which is paid by hard working people. With a smaller pool of hard working and well paid workers, the program would be forced to take more and more from higher-earners. This is mediated redistribution of wealth. Capitalism, in this case, has been converted into Socialism. Not only this, but the economy would certainly suffer.

The demands of some for the redistribution of the wealth of others to themselves (while certainly in their best interest), is not at all in the best interest of the rest who also want to protect themselves and their families. The demand, then, is ethically bad (and one might make a case based on Eph 4:28; 1 Thes 5:8; 2 Thes 3:10-13, that it is morally evil). Nobody has brought this up at all, possibly because we are already used to programs like welfare. Instead, we are hung up on intra-congressional political maneuvering and faux pas.

Again, the more the government props up corporate and financial institutions, the more it fosters their dependence on it. Nationalizing these sectors in any way ensures a dictatorial and therefore tyrannical role of the government over those sectors. If those sectors determine the actions of the people, autonomy of the people is removed and the people have become slaves to the government. I believe that this is exactly what liberals seek to accomplish. It is the average guy on the street who does not understand this and is thus roped into slavery unawares. Our president and our congress are willing to say whatever it takes to gain support for their initiatives, even without strong numbers behind them. They want us to trade our freedoms for a government dole. Welcome to the new United (Communist) States of America.

I Pledge Allegiance to Myself and to the President of Obama-Nation.

. . .And to the commune, for which it stands. One nation, Obama-led, indivisible, with hemp clothing and bicycles for all.

Here is a disturbing video found on You tube. This video - "I Pledge" - is supposed to be played in the public schools alongside President Obama's speech to schoolchildren today.



This video is a great example of liberal propaganda at its finest. These people are committed to changing our society into a utopian human construct and protecting our planet. These are noble sentiments indeed. But how do they plan on creating such an ideal place? By "smiling more" and "never giving the finger." By "not using plastic bags" at the grocery store and trading in their traditional "obnoxious" cars for hybrids. These stars are also committed to giving money to and stumping for liberal, U.N., and government run charities. By changing their actions, these celebrities will usher in a new era of prosperity - salvation itself!

The ultimate example of liberal snobbery is their utter devotion to Barack Obama. The celebrities' final pledge is to "be of service to Barack Obama." The initial and closing scenes are of an idealized image of Barack Obama, stoically facing the future.

This is the image of an "Obamessiah," a man elevated to a sort of god-hood, expected to rid the world of ignorance, suffering, and unhappiness, if only those backward conservatives would leave him alone! One gets the distinct impression from the video that these people believe that this is the true belief, the one way to achieve human happiness and fulfillment.

This is the height of idolatry, reminiscent of Roman Emperor-worship. But even as Obama is emperor of the moment, these celebrities are worshipping themselves. They look to themselves and their wealth to achieve utopia. They have forgotten that it is not they, themselves, who gave them all they have. Just as Israel forgot Yahweh, even as he saved them from Egypt, these people have forgotten He who formed them. They give no praise to God or mention of his works, his blessings, his Church, or his Church's work.

This president is a far cry from Bush and his "faith based initiative." This president is unapologetically humanistic and government-focused. Government, his government, shall not fail in their purpose. Change is coming and he asks you to be that change. Throw off any dedication to your creation myths and your theistic superstitions. Join the ranks on ranks who pledge support to one man - Barack Obama - and his government may bless you with bread you did not earn and the waters of dependency. Be the change and you will bless yourself!

This is a bankrupt ideology. While there are some "good" intentions within these pledges, there is no deeper meaning or purpose underlying them than living for oneself. The appeal of the video is to do the right thing, but we are not told why it is right or why it is important, except that through doing what we are told, we may be "on this planet forever." Certainly there is no understanding (or love) here of God's Laws or his character. This is a man-centered, and thus futile, philosophy.

Humanistic idolatry has come full circle - The same religion of self-worship that led the Israelites into sin and exile has taken words from Christianity and reformed itself from the ashes in a new cloak of piety. Now, only if we worship at the throne of Obamessiah, only if we cry out to the government upon his shoulders, only if we humble ourselves before him, will he hear us from Washington, give us pragmatic half-solutions, and heal our land.

Guns And Protests: How Should Christians Protect American Freedoms?

When President Barack Obama made a stop in Phoenix, Arizona on Monday, the location where he was to speak was surrounded by protesters. That is not, perhaps, unusual in and of itself, but there was something about this crowd that was . . . many were carrying guns.

Arizona is an open carry state - you may carry a loaded gun almost anywhere as long as it is in plain site. Only concealed carry requires a permit. A news article about the event, unfortunately, took issue with one particular man who carried a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle (perfectly legal), calling it "military-style" and an "assault weapon".

These protesters made the point that unless you use your rights, you will lose them. The the specific "rights" that they speak of is their interpretation of the second amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights: "the right right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was also interviewed for this article. He said that people should not be allowed to bring guns near the president. "To me, this is craziness. When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone."

Another perspective came from Northern Arizona University political scientist, Fred Solop,"When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance. It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication."

The question is, who's right? I believe they all are. The protesters are correct that they may, indeed, lose their rights to bear arms, although I disagree with their use of the Second Amendment. I will briefly describe why. The full amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Yes, individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. That right must be maintained. But the purpose for the keeping and bearing of arms is what is glossed over and has definitely been infringed upon: a well regulated militia. State and local militias are the last check to balance the political system to prevent our entire political system from spinning out of control. This nation was founded "for the people, by the people" and, according to the Declaration of Independence, must "throw off such a government [which "evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism"] . . . and provide new guards for their future security." State Militias were disbanded after the Civil War by Abraham Lincoln. All attempts to return to this model have been thwarted by the federal government. Each state should sovereignly maintain its own militia that could, in theory, overthrow the federal miltary. This keeps the government in check.

Protests, by nature, are supposed to shock and wake people from "things as usual." In this goal, these protesters are succeeding. But they may not like the response they receive. Most do not understand, or care, about what rights we have been given or their individual duty to protect them. They see open gun-carrying as a threat to personal safety and will not respond favorably.

The Brady Campaign president is also somewhat correct in that it is probably unwise to protest with guns around this particular president. Barack Obama is a rather polarizing individual and there seems to be a lot of anxiety concerning his ethnic background, his policies, and his means of achieving those policies. Many are worried that he might be threatened, or worse, assassinated. Assassination would be a tragedy and would do more to hurt the intentions of conservative gun-owners than anything the Brady Campaign could concoct.

The political scientist is also correct, not in theory but in practice. In our day, guns are polarizing and even the sight of a gun can send some individuals into a veritable panic. Conscientious gun owners and users should be sensitive to their concerns even while standing for their own beliefs. In theory, we should be able to bring guns into the presidential speeches and rallies, but given our current, divided, national condition, it would be very unwise and impractical to do so.

Political philosophy aside, how should Christians protect their freedoms as citizens? Are there things that are off limits to the Christian? Christians are under specific biblical strictures that we are required to obey. Paul said in Romans 13:1-5,

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves . . . For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Jesus said in Matthew 26:52, "All those who draw the sword will die by the sword (this may not be as much a condemnation as a warning)." Jesus also said in Matthew 5:21, "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment."

There is nothing in Scripture against protest, although we must be careful to obey our authorities. This holds concerns for common protest practices like civil disobedience. Further, we Christians must not violently protest or commit murder (including political assassination). Does this mean we cannot be involved in a militia or in the army? I don't think so. I believe that the Christian may serve as a militia-man or a soldier with a clear conscience. As an individual, the Christian should be a model citizen, even in the face of oppression.

How should the Christian go about changing laws? Our nation is blessed in that it allows individuals to participate in the political process (especially at the local, community level). Christians should be involved. We should use the means that have been granted by the work and blood of those who have gone before us. We can sway the government toward a favorable perspective toward the Gospel of Jesus Christ through faithful individual Christian witness and justice toward all people. When given the opportunity to speak on bills or regulations that could harm Gospel work or the Gospel message, we must speak out.

Should we protest? As long as it is lawful to protest peaceably, we may do so. Should we carry guns in protest? It may be legal in some places, and therefore it is a matter of personal conviction, but I would suggest that it is unwise to do so. Should we use guns in protest? Our current laws provide for the overthrow of the government through violent means, but I would suggest that this is not the realm of the Christian. Let us use the laws and the time we have been given to sway our legal system toward the cause of Christ Jesus so that violent protest is not necessary and we won't have to deal with the ethics and theology of such an event.