Barack Obama for President (?)
Let me preface this post with this: Ron Paul is still my guy by a mile. Secondly, I'm not suddenly sympathetic to modern liberal philosophy. But unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to win the nomination and the choice is going to be between Clinton and Obama or Romney and McCain. In 2004, I just voted for the Constitution Party candidate rather than vote for Bush (as I reluctantly did in 2000) or Kerry. And certainly, I have little in common with Obama's positions. On economics, it's more of the same left-wing ideas of higher taxes, nudges towards class warfare and other expensive policy proposals along with typical panderings to this or that victim group.
Right now the smart money is on McCain for the Republican ticket. I agree with McCain on more issues than I do Obama. And McCain is hardly as liberal as his conservative critics make him out to be, though on several key issues he is to the left of the base. But McCain is certainly not a libertarian nor is he a staunch conservative in the traditional sense. All of today's "mainstream conservatives" are in lockstep with inflationary policies and fiscal irresponsibility. McCain, at least, talks about cutting spending as a prerequisite to the right kind of tax cuts. And he's right, tax cuts without spending cuts just lead to larger deficits.But McCain and the rest of the GOP have no problem racking up huge spending overseas and around the world with out of control spending for the Warfare State. And this is McCain's major claim to fame right now. He says he has no problem having an American presence in Iraq for "100 years." He shows no desire to bring troops home from bases around the world where they've been for decades. He is generally belligerent towards any nation not on the USA's preferred list of nations. He makes a huge fuss about supporting the "surge" even though Republicans in general supported the surge. McCain, like the rest of the party, has sided with the President rather than the majority of the country on the desired direction to take with Iraq. If it was possible, and it looks to be like it is, McCain could be even much worse than President Bush in terms of foreign policy.
Clinton would be little better. She will prove that she's "tough" by dealing harshly with other nations. I have little doubt she'd keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, despite her friendly gesture to the liberal base about scaling down troop masses. Romney basically holds to McCain's positions without the military veteran credentials behind it.Obama at least shows a desire to engage with other nations. Whereas Clinton mocks him for wanting to talk to America's "enemies," this seems to be more about pride than productivity. Obama is sincere when he says he's always opposed the war. Clinton's vote in 2002 was the popular thing to do at the time when most the country was behind the concept of an invasion. Her position changed when it no longer became politically popular. The Clinton's have always been opportunists and the way they've campaigned, and how former Presisent Bill Clinton-- "America's First Black President"-- has tried to racially polarize the electorate has been shameful.
In terms of likeability, Obama wins by a longshot. I think he's sincere about wanting to bring both sides together. George Bush campaigned in 2000 as a "uniter, not a divider" and has been one of the most divisive Presidents in recent history. But Clinton II is just as, if more, divisive than her husband and the current President. After 16 years of this, and as America grows more divided, Obama has the best shot at reversing the mutual disdain of Red and Blue states, though I don't have many illusions that we will all be singing Kumbaye together anytime shortly.To be sure, Clinton and McCain are both more "qualified" than Obama. Clinton has slightly more experience as a legislator and McCain has been in elected office for many years. But what kind of experience are they bringing to the table? For the above mentioned reasons, not the right kind in my opinion. Also, and perhaps one of the most important reasons to vote for Obama is it would be a slap in the face to the Old Guard establishment on both sides. Polls show the same thing generally: Clinton wins the older vote, Obama wins the younger vote. McCain's rallies are full of elderly men in VFW caps. Even if it is mostly rhetoric, Obama at least inspires people and taps into youthful energy in the electorate.It's for these reasons, and several others, I'll be very reluctantly cheering on Obama for the rest of the 2008 election.
Prediction: Prediction: If Obama is the nominee, you won't see the Christian Right march in lockstep with the Republican Party for once in decades. For one thing, even though McCain really is a social conservative, and much more socially conservative politically than Obama, the Christian Right still by and large treats him as a pariah. If McCain makes Huckabee his running mate, that would stem the tide a bit, but then you irritate an equal or larger segment of Republicans who don't think either of them are real economic conservatives. If Hillary is the nominee, all the conservative complainers will vote for McCain despite their assertions now that they will stay home. But if it's Obama vs. McCain, all bets are off. The Old Guard Christian Right will endorse McCain. But many younger Evangelicals, who already have shown some independence philosophically in recent years, will break rank. Obama is, after all, much more vocal about his faith than McCain. And he seems much more "relevant."
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Jesus and Islam
As we enter into the Christmas season (what, already?!) it is obviously a good time to pause and reflect upon the birth of Jesus Christ, the son of God, the second person of the Trinity, and our great Savior. However, as we well know, not everybody will be celebrating Jesus this Christmas. One group of religious observers, Muslims, certainly will not be celebrating Christmas. What exactly do Muslims believe about Jesus and why is there such a barrier talking to them about Christ?
There exists a great deal of ignorance in the Christian community about what Muslims actually do and don’t believe. Many Christians see Islam as nothing more than a global menace that needs to be eradicated; a worldwide terrorist movement that hates all that is sacred to Christians. While I would certainly agree that Islam is a false religion, it is interesting to note areas of shared heritage. For instance, Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is an Abrahamic faith. By that I mean they consider Abraham a father of the faith. A major difference, however, is that they believe Ishmael was actually the child of promise, not Isaac.
Likewise, there are many Biblical characters that Islam revered. In fact, the Qur’an repeats (and distorts) many of the stories found in our Bible, especially the Old Testament. Many of the major Biblical characters are found in the Qur’an and are revered by Islam. Muslims would say that they basically believe in the Old Testament and much of the New—but that our Bibles have been corrupted. Most Muslims would say that “most” of the Old Testament was uncorrupted and agrees with the Qur’an, but that the New Testament is more heavily corrupted. The biggest corruption Muslims would say would be the New Testament’s assertion that Jesus is God the Son in the flesh, was mankind’s Messiah, and was put to death on the cross and later rose.
It is not at all the Muslims do not believe in Jesus or think negatively in Him. In fact, they assert that Jesus was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary. They believed Jesus was a miracle worker and will return to earth in the end of time with other significant Islamic figures. However, they do not believe Jesus was God’s son or was eternal with the Father. Islam considers such thinking to be blasphemous because they allege God the Father is so powerful and great that He does not need a Son and has no equal. Muslims also have a very difficult time with the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, considering it to be illogical, polytheistic (belief in more than one God), and heretical. This is a result of not truly understanding what Christians and the Bible teach about the Trinity and trying to understand God on a logical level (no, the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. It's just a theological term and there are plenty of theological terms used that are not found directly in the Bible. The concept, however, is there in a number of Scriptures).
The Qur’an also teaches that Jesus did not rally die on the Cross. Islam explicitly teaches that before Christ was to be put to death; God miraculously delivered Him and confused His enemies. In some quarters of Islam and that someone else was killed in His place. They also consider it offensive to assert that Jesus was killed on the Cross. Jesus ranks amongst the highest and most revered prophets in Islam, but they do not believe He was divine and consider Muhammad the greatest and final prophet.
Muslims believe that with the arrival of Muhammad and the composure of the Qur’an (written in the beginning of the 600’s and put into its canonical form around 650 A.D.) and that Allah (Allah simply means “God” in Arabic. Even Arab-speaking Christians call God “Allah” just as a Spanish speaking Christian would call God “Dios") stopped sending prophets after that. There is no further revelation after the Qur’an needed, the many Muslim groups have some lesser sacred writings that they claim to come from the hand of Muhammad. It’s appropriate to point out that while all Muslims are basically united in the above information, there are some significant differences between Islamic groups that I don’t have time to go into.
But what do we make about the above claims, especially the claims about Jesus (whom Muslims also call the Messiah, though they believe He came for the righteous in the House of Israel, not for all humanity in all times who will accept Him as Savior through faith)? There is quite a bit to be said, but it is interesting how Islam selectively quotes from the Old and New Testaments when such passages line up with their beliefs but disregard other passages that do not and claim that they were “corrupted.”
In fact, the Qur’an was in part to set the record straight about God’s teachings and revelations. With so many major claims in Islam—that Ishmael was the son of promise, that Jesus did not die on the Cross, etc—there is absolutely no textual evidence for this anywhere before the Qur’an. By that I mean we have found absolutely zero instances of ancient manuscript witnesses that even come close to affirming Islamic claims. You think they would be out there somewhere and that something would have been found by now. However, it’s not until the mid-600’s that these new teachings surfaced, and at that point we are talking about 2600 years to over 600 years after the original events took place. It would be like creating new facts or changing the story of Columbus discovering the West Indies today in 2007 and saying that all previous accounts of Columbus were lacking or corrupted, while only basing this on an alleged “revelation” from God.
To this day, there have not been adequate responses to these quite basic problems with Islamic story and teaching from Islamic scholars. In fact, the Qur’an is not exposed anywhere near the same amount of scrutiny that the Bible faces. When Christians deal with Muslims, however, they should not approach them with resentment, condemnation, or even fear. They should strike up conversation about our similarities but also lovingly raise the above problems with Qur’anic assertions. We need to remember this Christmas season that God loves Muslims too, wants them to discover a true faith in Christ, and that Christ was born and died for them as well as us.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Dear handful of faithful readers of this infrequently updated blog:
I'm curious to hear some topics you are interested to have me cover in future articles and opinion pieces for LRC or other outlets. And while you're at it, feel free to fire over any questions you may regarding anything.
Best,
Bill
I'm curious to hear some topics you are interested to have me cover in future articles and opinion pieces for LRC or other outlets. And while you're at it, feel free to fire over any questions you may regarding anything.
Best,
Bill
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Ballroom Dancing is of the Devil!!!
Just for fun, after my young adult Bible study ended tonight, I forced everyone over my house to watch an episode of "Jack Van Impe Presents." Jack Van Impe is one of the older and still more famous self-proclaimed prophecy experts on the airwaves (who of course has been consistently wrong about every major prophetic prediction and warning, yet still is on the air and maintains many enthusiastic followers). Today wasn't so much about prophecy but about "apostate churches" and "worldly churches." Apparently one of the horrible sins infecting churches these days is the acceptance of ballroom dancing as a legitimate form of entertainment. In fact, some churches even offer ballroom dancing inside their doors!!!
Van Impe was clearly disgusted by this and repeated his displeasure several times. Ballroom dancing was mentioned along with substance addiction as one of the problems facing the culture today. Now, I certainly agree that there's all sorts of bad doctrines floating around various churches and denominations today. And I also agree that many Christians have let unwholesome habits or entertainment into their lives. But come on, ballroom dancing? What is wrong with fundamentalists and the extreme holiness types? Where do the derive their definition of "worldly"? Does "worldly" equal anything remotely "fun" not connected to private spiritual disciplines and fundamentalist worship services?
No music. No playing cards--even if its just for sport and not for money. After all, it has the appearance of worldliness! Today it's playing Uno with your buddies. Tomorrow it's standing around a poker table in a drunken stupor gambling away all your family's money. No movies. Unless they are Left Behind movies or "The Passion of the Christ." Absolutely no drinking, not even one drop! (Pot-luck galores and constant obesity is OK though, of course). No music not found on Christian radio stations. Well, actually, most fundamentalists hate contemporary Christian music thinking it also to be "worldly." All good Bible-believing Christians should only sing and listen to songs from the 18th and 19th centuries (acceptable worship music ceased being written after 1955). No name brand clothes, even if they are modest, because only "worldly" people wear those. No nice homes or cars either (unless you are a prosperity charismatic, though they'd happily accept most the rest of the above). Basically, if it feels good DON'T do it. Anything that brings human pleasure is wrong and bad.
This is the essence of true holiness apparently.
"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules. 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." --Col. 2:20-23
Legalism and fundamentalism does not create Biblical holiness, only a false and extra-Biblical illusion.
Just for fun, after my young adult Bible study ended tonight, I forced everyone over my house to watch an episode of "Jack Van Impe Presents." Jack Van Impe is one of the older and still more famous self-proclaimed prophecy experts on the airwaves (who of course has been consistently wrong about every major prophetic prediction and warning, yet still is on the air and maintains many enthusiastic followers). Today wasn't so much about prophecy but about "apostate churches" and "worldly churches." Apparently one of the horrible sins infecting churches these days is the acceptance of ballroom dancing as a legitimate form of entertainment. In fact, some churches even offer ballroom dancing inside their doors!!!
Van Impe was clearly disgusted by this and repeated his displeasure several times. Ballroom dancing was mentioned along with substance addiction as one of the problems facing the culture today. Now, I certainly agree that there's all sorts of bad doctrines floating around various churches and denominations today. And I also agree that many Christians have let unwholesome habits or entertainment into their lives. But come on, ballroom dancing? What is wrong with fundamentalists and the extreme holiness types? Where do the derive their definition of "worldly"? Does "worldly" equal anything remotely "fun" not connected to private spiritual disciplines and fundamentalist worship services?
No music. No playing cards--even if its just for sport and not for money. After all, it has the appearance of worldliness! Today it's playing Uno with your buddies. Tomorrow it's standing around a poker table in a drunken stupor gambling away all your family's money. No movies. Unless they are Left Behind movies or "The Passion of the Christ." Absolutely no drinking, not even one drop! (Pot-luck galores and constant obesity is OK though, of course). No music not found on Christian radio stations. Well, actually, most fundamentalists hate contemporary Christian music thinking it also to be "worldly." All good Bible-believing Christians should only sing and listen to songs from the 18th and 19th centuries (acceptable worship music ceased being written after 1955). No name brand clothes, even if they are modest, because only "worldly" people wear those. No nice homes or cars either (unless you are a prosperity charismatic, though they'd happily accept most the rest of the above). Basically, if it feels good DON'T do it. Anything that brings human pleasure is wrong and bad.
This is the essence of true holiness apparently.
"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of the world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules. 'Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!' These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence." --Col. 2:20-23
Legalism and fundamentalism does not create Biblical holiness, only a false and extra-Biblical illusion.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
You're Not Going to Heaven Unless You Are a Pretribulationalist
Some more fun John Hagee stuff...
Here's Hagee on the importance of the Rapture, saying explicitly that unless you believe in his version of events of pretribulationalism, that you will be "left behind." Forget "Faith in Christ = salvation." It's now "Faith in Christ + pretribulational eschatology = salvation"! See his remarks on this starting at :52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtNyEJDUU6U&mode=related&search=
And here's Hagee's in the same sermon talking about the 10 Signs that we must be the "terminal generation." Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUMWZuvocbA&mode=related&search=
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeL1_p_esg0&mode=related&search=
I'm guessing this sermon is a few years old given the catastrophic reference to SARS, which hasn't yet eliminated the human race interestingly enough and has mostly dropped off the radar screen in the media. I especially love his description of people's future confusion after the rapture as if they are all morons. I'm sure that after all the Christians disappear--and cars start colliding into each other, planes crash, and fundamentalist churches everywhere are empty--that everyone is going to blame it on space aliens or explain it away with psychology (or understand what really happened and yet choose to follow the "antichrist" anyway). When you really sit and think through this on both a Scriptural and logical level, you really have to wonder how so many people could believe this ridiculous nonsense. As the false predictions continue to pile up from several generations of "prophecy experts," it's only a matter of time before this doctrine is completely discredited and ceases misleading people.
Some more fun John Hagee stuff...
Here's Hagee on the importance of the Rapture, saying explicitly that unless you believe in his version of events of pretribulationalism, that you will be "left behind." Forget "Faith in Christ = salvation." It's now "Faith in Christ + pretribulational eschatology = salvation"! See his remarks on this starting at :52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtNyEJDUU6U&mode=related&search=
And here's Hagee's in the same sermon talking about the 10 Signs that we must be the "terminal generation." Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUMWZuvocbA&mode=related&search=
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeL1_p_esg0&mode=related&search=
I'm guessing this sermon is a few years old given the catastrophic reference to SARS, which hasn't yet eliminated the human race interestingly enough and has mostly dropped off the radar screen in the media. I especially love his description of people's future confusion after the rapture as if they are all morons. I'm sure that after all the Christians disappear--and cars start colliding into each other, planes crash, and fundamentalist churches everywhere are empty--that everyone is going to blame it on space aliens or explain it away with psychology (or understand what really happened and yet choose to follow the "antichrist" anyway). When you really sit and think through this on both a Scriptural and logical level, you really have to wonder how so many people could believe this ridiculous nonsense. As the false predictions continue to pile up from several generations of "prophecy experts," it's only a matter of time before this doctrine is completely discredited and ceases misleading people.
Friday, September 07, 2007
Ron Paul and "Isolationism"
The term "isolationism" is ridiculously thrown around and misapplied to anybody who does not favor perpetual warfare. Here's a post I left on the LRC blog on the issue as it pertains to Ron Paul's campaign with a link to a piece from a year ago on the wider issue:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015169.html
The term "isolationism" is ridiculously thrown around and misapplied to anybody who does not favor perpetual warfare. Here's a post I left on the LRC blog on the issue as it pertains to Ron Paul's campaign with a link to a piece from a year ago on the wider issue:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015169.html
Thursday, August 23, 2007
God Is Not As Interesting As My I-Phone or Harry Potter
By Bill Barnwell
Brown City Youth Camp 2007
Sarah (energetic but in trancelike state): Wow, I am soooo tired but so happy right now.
Brandon: Whoa, you don’t look very good, what’s wrong?
Sarah: I have been up for the last 6 straight days reading the new Harry Potter book, “Deathly Hallows”, and all the other Harry Potter books before that. I haven’t slept or eaten all week. The week before that, I stood in line for 84 hours to get the new book right when it came out. Since then all I’ve done…is read Harry Potter.
Jim: Whoa you brought the new Harry Potter book? Do you have it with you? Hey everyone, Sarah has the new Harry Potter book! (extreme pandemonium with group)
Kelly: Did you read the ending? Does Harry live?
Chris: Whatever happens to the Elder Wand? Does Harry lose the power of the wand?
Jenny: What about the Resurrection Stone? Does anybody find it in the Forbidden Forest?
Jim: Hey, wait a minute, don’t give away the ending…(mesmerized and tranquil) I want to experience the greatness of Harry Potter myself.
Kelly: I’ve memorized the entire first 55 pages of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. If I keep working at it, I can memorize every word of the first book by the end of the year.
Chris: Yes, I memorize passages from Harry Potter too. Quoting Harry Potter helps get me through the difficult times in life. It gives me hope to press on and keep going.
Jim: (to Sarah): Can I please just touch the Harry Potter book? Please? I want to feel its power!
By Bill Barnwell
Brown City Youth Camp 2007
Sarah (energetic but in trancelike state): Wow, I am soooo tired but so happy right now.
Brandon: Whoa, you don’t look very good, what’s wrong?
Sarah: I have been up for the last 6 straight days reading the new Harry Potter book, “Deathly Hallows”, and all the other Harry Potter books before that. I haven’t slept or eaten all week. The week before that, I stood in line for 84 hours to get the new book right when it came out. Since then all I’ve done…is read Harry Potter.
Jim: Whoa you brought the new Harry Potter book? Do you have it with you? Hey everyone, Sarah has the new Harry Potter book! (extreme pandemonium with group)
Kelly: Did you read the ending? Does Harry live?
Chris: Whatever happens to the Elder Wand? Does Harry lose the power of the wand?
Jenny: What about the Resurrection Stone? Does anybody find it in the Forbidden Forest?
Jim: Hey, wait a minute, don’t give away the ending…(mesmerized and tranquil) I want to experience the greatness of Harry Potter myself.
Kelly: I’ve memorized the entire first 55 pages of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. If I keep working at it, I can memorize every word of the first book by the end of the year.
Chris: Yes, I memorize passages from Harry Potter too. Quoting Harry Potter helps get me through the difficult times in life. It gives me hope to press on and keep going.
Jim: (to Sarah): Can I please just touch the Harry Potter book? Please? I want to feel its power!
Jenny: Hey, didn’t our youth pastor say something about reading and memorizing some other book too? (crowd confused and hushed, discuss amongst themselves “Another book? Huh? What other book?”)
Brandon: But what other book could be as powerful, interesting, and inspiring as Harry Potter?
Sarah: How does he expect us to read another book? Who has time for other books between Harry Potter and playing around on the Internet? (crowd agrees).
Christina: I think it was some other book called, “The Bibel” or something like that.
Jim: Yes, I believe I’ve heard of this…Bibel. It’s about a God-man named Jesus who does magic, and then he uh, finds the Resurrection Stone and tells his Father to raise him from the dead after he dies. And if we believe in Jesus, we will get to wear the Cloak of Invincibility for eternity. Or something like that. (everyone collectively banters saying things like “oh yeah that’s right” “I remember now kinda”)
Pastor Tim (enters from outside): What are you guys talking about? It’s called the Bible, and Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins so we could have eternal life. He’s also the reason all of you are at youth group. Remember now? (crowd pauses and then lets out a collective “ooohhhh.”)
Cindy: But Pastor Tim, is the Bible really as good as Harry Potter though?
Pastor Tim: The Bible is awesome guys. It’s got adventure, love, romance, betrayal, and tons and tons of wisdom and instruction. Don’t you remember some of the great verses I’ve taught you? Come on let’s recite some of them. Let’s start with Ephesians 2:8-9!….(everyone just looks blank and quiet). OK, how about…John 14:6! (same response). OK, uh, John 3:16…Genesis 1:1??? (still nothing).
Christina: This is boring, when are we going to play a game? (everyone agrees).
Kelly: Can we at least like have some music or something? Music is cool.
Pastor Tim: Yeah, sure, we can do music. How about some Hillsong United? Or maybe some classic Third Day? (everyone lets out a disappointed groan).
Sarah: Those groups are stupid. Let’s play some Fall Out Boy! (everyone cheers).
Pastor Tim: Ok, fine, you guys don’t know the new stuff yet. How about a classic. Come on, everybody knows “Amazing Grace,” let’s sing that one! Ready?! (begins to sing by himself).
Jenny: I don’t know that song. But I do know the words to empowering and inspiring songs like this one, (begins to sing lyrics to ridiculous and vulgar song) “I'm not here for your entertainment/You don't really want to mess with me tonight/Just stop and take a second…”
Pastor Tim: (cuts her off) That’s OK, Jenny, we’ll pass on that one.
Jenny: But that song is sooooo cool, every girl loves it! The last part goes, “It’s just you and your…”
Pastor Tim: No thank you Jenny! That song is really inappropriate by the way. How come you guys are able to memorize all the lyrics to these raunchy songs, but you don’t even know the lyrics to any Christian music from church or the radio?
Chris: (aside to his friend) Man, Pastor Tim is real a jerk. He needs to stop making us think and stuff.
Pastor Tim: OK, OK, obviously you guys aren’t too motivated to talk about the Bible or sing any Christian songs. So, why don’t we do this, why don’t you guys go around and tell me some things you are excited about and some things you are thankful to God about. I’ll start. I’m thankful for salvation and that Jesus died for us. Isn’t that cool? (no response from the group) OK, your guys’ turn.
Christina: I’m thankful for my new I-Phone that my parents got me. You guys should totally see this thing. It can do everything (Crowd again worked up into a pandemonium).
Sarah: Wow, you got an I-Phone!? That’s so awesome!
Christina: Yeah, it’s great. My I-Phone can even bomb Canada. You can do anything with these things!
Brandon: I heard that the I-Phone is all-powerful and all-knowing!
Jim: Can I just once again…touch the I-Phone...and feel it’s power. (touches phone)
Kelly: Let us worship the I-Phone, the computer, the products, and celebrities that give our lives true meaning! Come on everybody, let’s sing! We wanna see I-Phones lifted high/a product that sells across this land/that consumers might buy and know/it is the way to heaven/We wanna see (clap, clap, clap). We wanna see (clap, clap, clap).
Pastor Tim: Guys, guys, what is wrong here?! The I-Phone and all these other things are not your Saviors!
Crowd: Hey, how come you never want us to have fun!
Cindy: Yeah, what do you have against the I-Phone and reading other books?
Pastor Tim: Nothing! Look, don’t get me wrong. I love to read fiction books and magazines. I like some songs on the radio as long as they aren’t dishonoring to God. I like my cell phone and I think the Internet is great. But these toys shouldn’t be taking up all our time and replacing our relationship with God! And forget these celebrities, we need Godly people with morals and integrity to be our role models.
Jenny (totally serious): You mean like….Lindsay Lohan?
Pastor Tim: No, not like Lindsay Lohan! Ugh, don’t any of you get it after all these years?
Chris: So you’re saying following Jesus is even more fulfilling than all these things, and that we can still have fun as Christians if we have the right priorities?
Pastor Tim: Yes, if you’d just give it a chance.
Jim: Sorry Pastor Tim, I don’t have time for all that, I have to go finish the Harry Potter series (he exits).
Brandon: And I have to go spend the next nine hours on Myspace leaving all my friends comments so they’ll leave me comments back on my site. That way I can feel cool and popular. (he exits along with half of the group, the other half stays).
Cindy: I think you’re right Pastor Tim. You’re right I have been putting everything else before God. I guess I really do have time for Him, I’m just always making excuses.
Kelly: Yeah, I want to stay too. I’ll actually listen this time instead of writing notes so I can learn something.
Pastor Tim: OK, I’ll tell you what, let’s open up in prayer and ask God to be with us today (they all bow in prayer and after a moment everyone exists offstage).
Brandon: But what other book could be as powerful, interesting, and inspiring as Harry Potter?
Sarah: How does he expect us to read another book? Who has time for other books between Harry Potter and playing around on the Internet? (crowd agrees).
Christina: I think it was some other book called, “The Bibel” or something like that.
Jim: Yes, I believe I’ve heard of this…Bibel. It’s about a God-man named Jesus who does magic, and then he uh, finds the Resurrection Stone and tells his Father to raise him from the dead after he dies. And if we believe in Jesus, we will get to wear the Cloak of Invincibility for eternity. Or something like that. (everyone collectively banters saying things like “oh yeah that’s right” “I remember now kinda”)
Pastor Tim (enters from outside): What are you guys talking about? It’s called the Bible, and Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh who died on the cross for our sins so we could have eternal life. He’s also the reason all of you are at youth group. Remember now? (crowd pauses and then lets out a collective “ooohhhh.”)
Cindy: But Pastor Tim, is the Bible really as good as Harry Potter though?
Pastor Tim: The Bible is awesome guys. It’s got adventure, love, romance, betrayal, and tons and tons of wisdom and instruction. Don’t you remember some of the great verses I’ve taught you? Come on let’s recite some of them. Let’s start with Ephesians 2:8-9!….(everyone just looks blank and quiet). OK, how about…John 14:6! (same response). OK, uh, John 3:16…Genesis 1:1??? (still nothing).
Christina: This is boring, when are we going to play a game? (everyone agrees).
Kelly: Can we at least like have some music or something? Music is cool.
Pastor Tim: Yeah, sure, we can do music. How about some Hillsong United? Or maybe some classic Third Day? (everyone lets out a disappointed groan).
Sarah: Those groups are stupid. Let’s play some Fall Out Boy! (everyone cheers).
Pastor Tim: Ok, fine, you guys don’t know the new stuff yet. How about a classic. Come on, everybody knows “Amazing Grace,” let’s sing that one! Ready?! (begins to sing by himself).
Jenny: I don’t know that song. But I do know the words to empowering and inspiring songs like this one, (begins to sing lyrics to ridiculous and vulgar song) “I'm not here for your entertainment/You don't really want to mess with me tonight/Just stop and take a second…”
Pastor Tim: (cuts her off) That’s OK, Jenny, we’ll pass on that one.
Jenny: But that song is sooooo cool, every girl loves it! The last part goes, “It’s just you and your…”
Pastor Tim: No thank you Jenny! That song is really inappropriate by the way. How come you guys are able to memorize all the lyrics to these raunchy songs, but you don’t even know the lyrics to any Christian music from church or the radio?
Chris: (aside to his friend) Man, Pastor Tim is real a jerk. He needs to stop making us think and stuff.
Pastor Tim: OK, OK, obviously you guys aren’t too motivated to talk about the Bible or sing any Christian songs. So, why don’t we do this, why don’t you guys go around and tell me some things you are excited about and some things you are thankful to God about. I’ll start. I’m thankful for salvation and that Jesus died for us. Isn’t that cool? (no response from the group) OK, your guys’ turn.
Christina: I’m thankful for my new I-Phone that my parents got me. You guys should totally see this thing. It can do everything (Crowd again worked up into a pandemonium).
Sarah: Wow, you got an I-Phone!? That’s so awesome!
Christina: Yeah, it’s great. My I-Phone can even bomb Canada. You can do anything with these things!
Brandon: I heard that the I-Phone is all-powerful and all-knowing!
Jim: Can I just once again…touch the I-Phone...and feel it’s power. (touches phone)
Kelly: Let us worship the I-Phone, the computer, the products, and celebrities that give our lives true meaning! Come on everybody, let’s sing! We wanna see I-Phones lifted high/a product that sells across this land/that consumers might buy and know/it is the way to heaven/We wanna see (clap, clap, clap). We wanna see (clap, clap, clap).
Pastor Tim: Guys, guys, what is wrong here?! The I-Phone and all these other things are not your Saviors!
Crowd: Hey, how come you never want us to have fun!
Cindy: Yeah, what do you have against the I-Phone and reading other books?
Pastor Tim: Nothing! Look, don’t get me wrong. I love to read fiction books and magazines. I like some songs on the radio as long as they aren’t dishonoring to God. I like my cell phone and I think the Internet is great. But these toys shouldn’t be taking up all our time and replacing our relationship with God! And forget these celebrities, we need Godly people with morals and integrity to be our role models.
Jenny (totally serious): You mean like….Lindsay Lohan?
Pastor Tim: No, not like Lindsay Lohan! Ugh, don’t any of you get it after all these years?
Chris: So you’re saying following Jesus is even more fulfilling than all these things, and that we can still have fun as Christians if we have the right priorities?
Pastor Tim: Yes, if you’d just give it a chance.
Jim: Sorry Pastor Tim, I don’t have time for all that, I have to go finish the Harry Potter series (he exits).
Brandon: And I have to go spend the next nine hours on Myspace leaving all my friends comments so they’ll leave me comments back on my site. That way I can feel cool and popular. (he exits along with half of the group, the other half stays).
Cindy: I think you’re right Pastor Tim. You’re right I have been putting everything else before God. I guess I really do have time for Him, I’m just always making excuses.
Kelly: Yeah, I want to stay too. I’ll actually listen this time instead of writing notes so I can learn something.
Pastor Tim: OK, I’ll tell you what, let’s open up in prayer and ask God to be with us today (they all bow in prayer and after a moment everyone exists offstage).
THE END
*Pastor Tim represents how I feel on a fairly regular basis. The kids' attitudes are only a slightly exaggerated version of what I encounter with people week after week. It begins to catch up with you after awhile.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Are All Sins the Same?
"All sin is sin - one sin is not greater than another and should not be condemned any more harshly than any other sin."
This is a popular concept in Evangelicalism today which I suppose we owe to the Baptistfication of theology, but I don't think it is wholly accurate. Certainly in both the OT and NT certain sins were singled out for more severe punishment or condemnation. While there was a whole lot of stonin' going on in the OT, the law did not require every sin to result in stoning. There were levels of punishment. In the NT, we have teaching about various sins and living righteously, but Christ indicates that some sins are worse than others and will even have graver eschatological consequences (Matthew 11:20-24).
Likewise, Paul denounces a whole host of sins, but not all sin was meant with expulsion from the assembly. Paul has a good amount to say about sexual sin, even taking place within the church, but a certain "kind" of sin Paul calls for expulsion (I Cor. 5:1). So, in the here and now, there is clearly a distinction of sin and punishment, and we even have hints of levels of suffering and reward in the hereafter (Matt. 11:20-24; I Cor. 3:10-13).Where all sin is alike is that it all leads to death. Theoretically if a guy's only sin in life is stealing a Snicker's bar and he doesn't have the forgiveness of Christ, then his sin condemns him just as sin condemns the hardened murderer who is also without Christ. But it's absurd to think that stealing a Snicker's bar is morally equal to child rape or armed robbery, even though all are sinful activities. I think I understand what people mean when they say all sin is equal in that all sin leads to death and all sinners need Jesus (i.e. all of us). But I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where "all sin is the same."
The statement above I am responding to took place in a Christian discussion forum I am a part of. The subject was homosexuality and the poster was trying to make a statement that while she accepted that homosexuality was sinful, it really isn't any different from any other sin. While I don't agree with that for reasons stated above, I'm not so sure homosexuality is all that much more terrible than many other forms of sexual sin. Most Christians who take a high view of Scripture can make many Biblical and practical cases against homosexuality. I find the gay-friendly theologies out there quite unconvincing, not because of inherent bigotry, but because they just don't convince.
But while conservative Christians speak out against sexual sin of all kind, none come under such hysteria as the homosexual issue. And the gay-lib theologians are correct in pointing out that the condemnations of straight sexual sins far outnumber those specifically directed at homosexuals. In fact, we don't exactly have mounds of direct references to homosexuality in the OT or NT-- but we do, however, have more than enough to build a case against the behavior, and I don't think it can just be limited to cultural considerations. But if we want to take the gay marriage issue, which for the record I do not support--can we honestly say with a straight face that gays are destroying the institution of marriage by their political activities aimed at obtaining basically secular "marriage" recognition? It seems to me that straight people did a fine job on their own of denigrating marriage, including more than a few married Christian couples.
"All sin is sin - one sin is not greater than another and should not be condemned any more harshly than any other sin."
This is a popular concept in Evangelicalism today which I suppose we owe to the Baptistfication of theology, but I don't think it is wholly accurate. Certainly in both the OT and NT certain sins were singled out for more severe punishment or condemnation. While there was a whole lot of stonin' going on in the OT, the law did not require every sin to result in stoning. There were levels of punishment. In the NT, we have teaching about various sins and living righteously, but Christ indicates that some sins are worse than others and will even have graver eschatological consequences (Matthew 11:20-24).
Likewise, Paul denounces a whole host of sins, but not all sin was meant with expulsion from the assembly. Paul has a good amount to say about sexual sin, even taking place within the church, but a certain "kind" of sin Paul calls for expulsion (I Cor. 5:1). So, in the here and now, there is clearly a distinction of sin and punishment, and we even have hints of levels of suffering and reward in the hereafter (Matt. 11:20-24; I Cor. 3:10-13).Where all sin is alike is that it all leads to death. Theoretically if a guy's only sin in life is stealing a Snicker's bar and he doesn't have the forgiveness of Christ, then his sin condemns him just as sin condemns the hardened murderer who is also without Christ. But it's absurd to think that stealing a Snicker's bar is morally equal to child rape or armed robbery, even though all are sinful activities. I think I understand what people mean when they say all sin is equal in that all sin leads to death and all sinners need Jesus (i.e. all of us). But I'm not seeing anywhere in Scripture where "all sin is the same."
The statement above I am responding to took place in a Christian discussion forum I am a part of. The subject was homosexuality and the poster was trying to make a statement that while she accepted that homosexuality was sinful, it really isn't any different from any other sin. While I don't agree with that for reasons stated above, I'm not so sure homosexuality is all that much more terrible than many other forms of sexual sin. Most Christians who take a high view of Scripture can make many Biblical and practical cases against homosexuality. I find the gay-friendly theologies out there quite unconvincing, not because of inherent bigotry, but because they just don't convince.
But while conservative Christians speak out against sexual sin of all kind, none come under such hysteria as the homosexual issue. And the gay-lib theologians are correct in pointing out that the condemnations of straight sexual sins far outnumber those specifically directed at homosexuals. In fact, we don't exactly have mounds of direct references to homosexuality in the OT or NT-- but we do, however, have more than enough to build a case against the behavior, and I don't think it can just be limited to cultural considerations. But if we want to take the gay marriage issue, which for the record I do not support--can we honestly say with a straight face that gays are destroying the institution of marriage by their political activities aimed at obtaining basically secular "marriage" recognition? It seems to me that straight people did a fine job on their own of denigrating marriage, including more than a few married Christian couples.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Cut Up All Your Credit Cards?
Early in my college years, I was constantly warned about the evils of credit cards. Horror stories were told of people who got in over their heads and eventually went bankrupt because of their high accumulation of debt. If a person had a credit card, they’d always be tempted to spend more than they could afford and be enslaved by minimum payments and accumulating interest. The solution given to me and many others who did not already have established credit was to never apply for a credit card. The advice to everybody else who had cards was to cut them up and never use them again or at least for the foreseeable future.
This advice, while having the appearance of wisdom, is not actually wise for everybody. It’s only good advice for impulsive people who cannot manage their own spending, or who have not mastered the art of using credit cards to their own advantage. For everybody else, especially those who have never established their own credit, it’s incredibly bad advice.
Doing some side work now in the mortgage business has been quite enlightening regarding people’s view and use of credit. Usually what happens is a potential borrower contacts me about securing a loan for a home purchase or a refinance. After taking down some basic information I inform them that I have to pull their credit. Within moments I am able to see the potential borrower’s credit score from the three major credit bureaus (a word of advice: always check your credit report each year because it’s very common to find errors. Also, always get your credit scores. Free reports usually don’t include the score for free, but it’s worth the cost to know your score. And don’t just get the score from only one bureau, get it from all three. Lenders almost always use the middle score, and if you only pull one score, it may not be the one on which you’re actually judged) and also their credit usage history.
After pulling the reports I very often find that people have dug themselves into a hole with their credit cards: very high balances, late payments, etc. But I also find another interesting scenario: would-be borrowers who have no credit cards and show little if anything in their actual credit file. The problem with this is that to obtain favorable loans (or a loan at all), you have to have a proven record of responsible use of credit.
So here’s the problem: No or bad credit history = no or low credit score = no loan ineligibility or sky-high interest rates.
At least the guy with the diminished credit can still maybe be approved for a subprime loan. But the young guy with no credit file and little if any money for a downpayment, will not get a loan at all. Not only that, but when he finally wakes up and realizes that it’s very hard to be economically successful with no credit history, he finds that it’s incredibly hard to establish credit. When the bank or whoever finally approves the consumer for a card it usually has a very low credit limit and very high interest rate. That’s OK, there’s still hope. Just keep reading.
When I talk to people who have the thin or nonexistent credit files, I ask them if they’ve considered taking out a credit card or department store card. Their response is like mine used to be: “Well, I always thought credit cards were a bad thing so I just avoid them.” Some remark, “I have a debit card, does that count”? (The answer is no for credit building purposes).
The hysteria against credit cards is an overreaction to the larger cultural problem of debt irresponsibility. You can have a credit card, including those really high-interest ones, and be completely responsible and never even pay a dime of interest as long as you have it. The solution is very simple: pay your balance in full each month. Forget the “minimum payment.” The minimum payment is designed to keep you enslaved to debt and make the lenders more money. Instead, you can make more off them in terms of convenience, building your credit file, and earning gimmicky “rewards” from the issuers, just for using your card responsibly. As long as you don’t spend more than you can completely pay off each month, you’re fine, and you’re not sinning or being wasteful by using a credit card in the process.
Let’s say you’re a grown adult who has never taken out any revolving credit in your lifetime (or maybe no credit period) and you’ve struggled to finally get approved for a card. They wind up giving you a card with a low credit limit of $500 and a 22% interest rate. Here’s what you do: just put some gas and food on the card each month and pay it all off every month, ignoring the “minimum payment.” Don’t ever be late. Do that for six months and you’ll be on the map with a credit score.
Give it another six months or so and apply for another card advertising great rates and rewards. After a year of responsible, timely credit usage, you’ll easily get approved, have a much higher credit limit, and a much better interest rate. But you won’t need to worry about the interest rate anyway since you’re going to pay it all off on time anyway. If you do leave a balance on occasion (as some credit building strategists advice), keep it small. Another thing lenders look at is what your available credit limit is in proportion to the amount of credit still available. The more credit available, the more responsible borrower you appear to be and the higher your credit score. Also, don’t close out that old card. Keep it as an active trade line by charging a small purchase or two a month each and then pay it all off.
On a whole, credit cards can be very convenient. But don’t look at them as a tool to “buy” something today and pay it off next year. Your purchase will wind up costing you much more than the original price after interest piles on. Think of it as buying something today and paying for it in a couple weeks. Instead of carrying around large sums of cash, you can instead pay with your card, and then in a couple weeks pay off your card online with convenient online banking (Who still sends checks these days? If it’s you, get with the times!). And in the process your credit score grows and your purchasing power increases. Make your credit a tool for your own success instead of an instrument of irresponsible spending and piling debt.
Bankers have a name for people who use credit responsibly and as a tool for their own success: they call them “deadbeats.” That’s because when you use credit to your own benefit, you are enriching yourself, and not the banks.
Anti-debt hysteriacs are leading too many young adults astray with their fear mongering of credit cards. They have “thrown the baby out with the bathwater” to use an odd expression. They assume that everybody who uses credit cards is on the path towards bankruptcy, just as many teetotalers assume that every person who enjoys an occasional glass of wine with dinner is on the fast track to becoming an alcoholic.
They even go so far as to say that taking out a home loan is sinful or economically unwise in every circumstance. So unless you have 100K upfront to fork over for a small and modest house, you should rent your entire life rather than buying a home in your price range with payments you can realistically afford. Nevermind that some of these “debt-free” enthusiasts are multimillionaires. Their books sales and radio shows enable them to put all the money down for their homes and follow their own advice. Most likely, you don’t have that luxury. Nor will you ever have much purchasing power if you avoid credit completely.
So, cut up all your cards? Only if you’re impulsive and have no self-control. If that’s you, then yeah, you need to go cold-turkey and get the temptation out of your path. But for everybody else, you’re much better off to use debt and credit to your advantage. If you haven’t established any credit yet, now is the time to get started. And one of those little cards might just be the trick.
Early in my college years, I was constantly warned about the evils of credit cards. Horror stories were told of people who got in over their heads and eventually went bankrupt because of their high accumulation of debt. If a person had a credit card, they’d always be tempted to spend more than they could afford and be enslaved by minimum payments and accumulating interest. The solution given to me and many others who did not already have established credit was to never apply for a credit card. The advice to everybody else who had cards was to cut them up and never use them again or at least for the foreseeable future.
This advice, while having the appearance of wisdom, is not actually wise for everybody. It’s only good advice for impulsive people who cannot manage their own spending, or who have not mastered the art of using credit cards to their own advantage. For everybody else, especially those who have never established their own credit, it’s incredibly bad advice.
Doing some side work now in the mortgage business has been quite enlightening regarding people’s view and use of credit. Usually what happens is a potential borrower contacts me about securing a loan for a home purchase or a refinance. After taking down some basic information I inform them that I have to pull their credit. Within moments I am able to see the potential borrower’s credit score from the three major credit bureaus (a word of advice: always check your credit report each year because it’s very common to find errors. Also, always get your credit scores. Free reports usually don’t include the score for free, but it’s worth the cost to know your score. And don’t just get the score from only one bureau, get it from all three. Lenders almost always use the middle score, and if you only pull one score, it may not be the one on which you’re actually judged) and also their credit usage history.
After pulling the reports I very often find that people have dug themselves into a hole with their credit cards: very high balances, late payments, etc. But I also find another interesting scenario: would-be borrowers who have no credit cards and show little if anything in their actual credit file. The problem with this is that to obtain favorable loans (or a loan at all), you have to have a proven record of responsible use of credit.
So here’s the problem: No or bad credit history = no or low credit score = no loan ineligibility or sky-high interest rates.
At least the guy with the diminished credit can still maybe be approved for a subprime loan. But the young guy with no credit file and little if any money for a downpayment, will not get a loan at all. Not only that, but when he finally wakes up and realizes that it’s very hard to be economically successful with no credit history, he finds that it’s incredibly hard to establish credit. When the bank or whoever finally approves the consumer for a card it usually has a very low credit limit and very high interest rate. That’s OK, there’s still hope. Just keep reading.
When I talk to people who have the thin or nonexistent credit files, I ask them if they’ve considered taking out a credit card or department store card. Their response is like mine used to be: “Well, I always thought credit cards were a bad thing so I just avoid them.” Some remark, “I have a debit card, does that count”? (The answer is no for credit building purposes).
The hysteria against credit cards is an overreaction to the larger cultural problem of debt irresponsibility. You can have a credit card, including those really high-interest ones, and be completely responsible and never even pay a dime of interest as long as you have it. The solution is very simple: pay your balance in full each month. Forget the “minimum payment.” The minimum payment is designed to keep you enslaved to debt and make the lenders more money. Instead, you can make more off them in terms of convenience, building your credit file, and earning gimmicky “rewards” from the issuers, just for using your card responsibly. As long as you don’t spend more than you can completely pay off each month, you’re fine, and you’re not sinning or being wasteful by using a credit card in the process.
Let’s say you’re a grown adult who has never taken out any revolving credit in your lifetime (or maybe no credit period) and you’ve struggled to finally get approved for a card. They wind up giving you a card with a low credit limit of $500 and a 22% interest rate. Here’s what you do: just put some gas and food on the card each month and pay it all off every month, ignoring the “minimum payment.” Don’t ever be late. Do that for six months and you’ll be on the map with a credit score.
Give it another six months or so and apply for another card advertising great rates and rewards. After a year of responsible, timely credit usage, you’ll easily get approved, have a much higher credit limit, and a much better interest rate. But you won’t need to worry about the interest rate anyway since you’re going to pay it all off on time anyway. If you do leave a balance on occasion (as some credit building strategists advice), keep it small. Another thing lenders look at is what your available credit limit is in proportion to the amount of credit still available. The more credit available, the more responsible borrower you appear to be and the higher your credit score. Also, don’t close out that old card. Keep it as an active trade line by charging a small purchase or two a month each and then pay it all off.
On a whole, credit cards can be very convenient. But don’t look at them as a tool to “buy” something today and pay it off next year. Your purchase will wind up costing you much more than the original price after interest piles on. Think of it as buying something today and paying for it in a couple weeks. Instead of carrying around large sums of cash, you can instead pay with your card, and then in a couple weeks pay off your card online with convenient online banking (Who still sends checks these days? If it’s you, get with the times!). And in the process your credit score grows and your purchasing power increases. Make your credit a tool for your own success instead of an instrument of irresponsible spending and piling debt.
Bankers have a name for people who use credit responsibly and as a tool for their own success: they call them “deadbeats.” That’s because when you use credit to your own benefit, you are enriching yourself, and not the banks.
Anti-debt hysteriacs are leading too many young adults astray with their fear mongering of credit cards. They have “thrown the baby out with the bathwater” to use an odd expression. They assume that everybody who uses credit cards is on the path towards bankruptcy, just as many teetotalers assume that every person who enjoys an occasional glass of wine with dinner is on the fast track to becoming an alcoholic.
They even go so far as to say that taking out a home loan is sinful or economically unwise in every circumstance. So unless you have 100K upfront to fork over for a small and modest house, you should rent your entire life rather than buying a home in your price range with payments you can realistically afford. Nevermind that some of these “debt-free” enthusiasts are multimillionaires. Their books sales and radio shows enable them to put all the money down for their homes and follow their own advice. Most likely, you don’t have that luxury. Nor will you ever have much purchasing power if you avoid credit completely.
So, cut up all your cards? Only if you’re impulsive and have no self-control. If that’s you, then yeah, you need to go cold-turkey and get the temptation out of your path. But for everybody else, you’re much better off to use debt and credit to your advantage. If you haven’t established any credit yet, now is the time to get started. And one of those little cards might just be the trick.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Revivalism, R.I.P.?
"Revival" is of often thrown around term these days that rarely has anything to do with its meaning and certainly bears no resemblance to the First, Second, and Third Great Awakenings in America. We often hear in churches and Christian colleges that "we are praying for a revival." In the holiness and even some Baptist traditions, holding church "revivals" was and sometimes still is a regular event. Even back a few decades ago, churches would hold "revival," call in a big shot evangelist and pack the place out. The preacher would deliver a series of convicting sermons, invite people to "come forward" during the altar call, where people would pray the sinner's prayer, "asking Jesus into your heart" and so on.
Today revivals have mostly gone by the wayside. A lot of churches still try them, but they are a shadow of their former glory. This is what a revival means today for the average church that is still doing them: "We are bringing in a special speaker who is different from the guy you normally hear (sometimes still the formerly big deal, but now much older Evangelist) and we're going to have a week of evening services where a third to one half of the congregation will show up."I've preached revival services. I like the concept. I wish they were still a big deal. But in my experience in speaking at them, and even trying them at my own church, 98% of the people coming are the leaders and the people who already come to everything. Those riding the fence spiritually usually don't show and usually visitors aren't attending in any meaningful number. I say usually because there are exceptions of course. I know of some examples from different churches who made their first commitments during a revival service. But more often than not, it's just a week of extra evenings of church with sermons focusing on salvation and the Holy Spirit and attended by people who are already long-time Christians. The days appear to be gone, at least in the regions I've lived, where the whole neighborhood would come out for revival services. Now you're lucky to get half of your congregation to come out to these services.
Camp meetings have also been going out of style the last couple decades as well. Brown City Camp (my annual denominational family camp in Michigan) is an exception in that the camp is still booming with over 2,000 people at evening services, but even there, I'd say 90% of the people are the same attenders year after year. This figure is even higher in regards to people who actually stay on the camp grounds, since there is a multi-year long waiting list for new people to get camp lots. So your best hope is for people to find someone to stay with on the grounds, or commute to evening services, but generally it's mostly the same people coming to camp. Revivalist camps love the altar call, as do most churches out of the revivalist movement. I'm not opposed to them, I think they can be useful, but I think they are overrated. One thing I've always noticed about altar calls is that normally it's the same people who come forward, and more often than not, it's the people who are already serious about things. The minority of respondents are people who come forward time and time again about the same sin issue, or feel the need to get saved 20 times.
This raises another interesting question about the altar call. Preachers tend to get real excited when a lot of people come forward, but is it perhaps a bit troubling if the same people are coming forward for the same struggles year after year? (and/or always the leaders that most of us would already like to emulate coming forward, whom you could preach a sermon to about the need not to torture kittens, and they would still feel convicted for some reason and come forward).I hope these type of revivalist concepts stick around for awhile.
Honestly, I generally like evangelists, camp meeting, special services (however I'm becoming less and less fond of the "sinner's prayer" though I still employ it), altar calls, ect. But is the revivalist movement on life support, or at least approaching it's Medicaid years?
"Revival" is of often thrown around term these days that rarely has anything to do with its meaning and certainly bears no resemblance to the First, Second, and Third Great Awakenings in America. We often hear in churches and Christian colleges that "we are praying for a revival." In the holiness and even some Baptist traditions, holding church "revivals" was and sometimes still is a regular event. Even back a few decades ago, churches would hold "revival," call in a big shot evangelist and pack the place out. The preacher would deliver a series of convicting sermons, invite people to "come forward" during the altar call, where people would pray the sinner's prayer, "asking Jesus into your heart" and so on.
Today revivals have mostly gone by the wayside. A lot of churches still try them, but they are a shadow of their former glory. This is what a revival means today for the average church that is still doing them: "We are bringing in a special speaker who is different from the guy you normally hear (sometimes still the formerly big deal, but now much older Evangelist) and we're going to have a week of evening services where a third to one half of the congregation will show up."I've preached revival services. I like the concept. I wish they were still a big deal. But in my experience in speaking at them, and even trying them at my own church, 98% of the people coming are the leaders and the people who already come to everything. Those riding the fence spiritually usually don't show and usually visitors aren't attending in any meaningful number. I say usually because there are exceptions of course. I know of some examples from different churches who made their first commitments during a revival service. But more often than not, it's just a week of extra evenings of church with sermons focusing on salvation and the Holy Spirit and attended by people who are already long-time Christians. The days appear to be gone, at least in the regions I've lived, where the whole neighborhood would come out for revival services. Now you're lucky to get half of your congregation to come out to these services.
Camp meetings have also been going out of style the last couple decades as well. Brown City Camp (my annual denominational family camp in Michigan) is an exception in that the camp is still booming with over 2,000 people at evening services, but even there, I'd say 90% of the people are the same attenders year after year. This figure is even higher in regards to people who actually stay on the camp grounds, since there is a multi-year long waiting list for new people to get camp lots. So your best hope is for people to find someone to stay with on the grounds, or commute to evening services, but generally it's mostly the same people coming to camp. Revivalist camps love the altar call, as do most churches out of the revivalist movement. I'm not opposed to them, I think they can be useful, but I think they are overrated. One thing I've always noticed about altar calls is that normally it's the same people who come forward, and more often than not, it's the people who are already serious about things. The minority of respondents are people who come forward time and time again about the same sin issue, or feel the need to get saved 20 times.
This raises another interesting question about the altar call. Preachers tend to get real excited when a lot of people come forward, but is it perhaps a bit troubling if the same people are coming forward for the same struggles year after year? (and/or always the leaders that most of us would already like to emulate coming forward, whom you could preach a sermon to about the need not to torture kittens, and they would still feel convicted for some reason and come forward).I hope these type of revivalist concepts stick around for awhile.
Honestly, I generally like evangelists, camp meeting, special services (however I'm becoming less and less fond of the "sinner's prayer" though I still employ it), altar calls, ect. But is the revivalist movement on life support, or at least approaching it's Medicaid years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
