God's Not Mad

Theology On Tap

2006-07-12T08:05:00.000-05:00

I woke up this morning to see this article in the paper. Perhaps the Protestant Church could learn a thing or two from their Catholic brethren?

Theology event for young adults
Posted June 30, 2006 - Religion brief

Theology on Tap will be held four Tuesdays this summer, beginning July 11. Young adults in their 20s and 30s, married or single, can attend to enrich their lives with a better understanding of their Catholic faith and how it relates to their lives. Catholic parishes in the Wausau Deanery are hosting the free series from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. each evening at various locations.

The July 11 session "Today's Society and Spirituality: Do They Jive?" will be held at The Bar at Cedar Creek, 10302 Market St., Rothschild, with Wendy Mitch, youth minister at Newman University Parish, Stevens Point.

The July 18 meeting will be "DaVinci Code is in the Fiction Section for a Reason" at the City Grill, 203 Jefferson St., in downtown Wausau, with the Rev. Mark Pierce of Roncali Newman Parish in La Crosse.

The July 25 session at Dale's Weston Lanes, 5902 Schofield Ave., Weston, will discuss "Deal or No Deal: Knocking on Heaven's Door" with Mark Arnold, deacon at Church of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Jim Falls and assistant to the dean in the Chippewa Falls Deanery.

The Aug. 1 gathering will be held at the Marathon Bowling Center, 1200 S. Highway 107 in Marathon. The talk is "God or the Girl: The Story of Fr. Sam Martin" with Martin who is chaplain at Aquinas High School and director of the Holy Cross Seminary House of Formation in La Crosse.

MySpace or "His" Space

2006-04-21T08:45:00.000-05:00

There sure are a lot of MySpace knock-offs in the Christian world:

Oaktree
People Fisher
Xianz
JCFaith
Holy Pal
Christ Union
Battle Cry
CMatch
Bible Lounge
Christianster
Christian Vibes
Ditty Talk
My Faith Connects
Christ Union
Your Christian Space
Holy Pal
Christlike Myspace
5 Loaves
Cool Christian Friends

This last one is particularily inspirational and creative.

Return of the Evangelical

2006-03-11T08:31:00.000-06:00

It's been some time since our last post, we do appologize. We've spent the last month in Southern California, bouncing back and forth from the Phoenix area.

After taking in the Long Beach Aquarium, Natural Field Museum, Knott's Berry Farm and other attractions - I've come to this conclusion: My kids are expensive.

So, If your interested, I'll be posting them on ebay later this week.

In other news, Creepy greeter remembers everything

Moisture Responsibility

2006-02-10T07:22:00.000-06:00

New research from the Earth Policy Institute indicates that consumers are wasting $100 billion a year on bottled water.

That's no surprise. Experts have said for years that tap water in most cases is every bit as healthy as the stuff that comes in fancy bottles -- with pricetags that make gasoline look like a bargain. In fact, bottled water often is nothing but plain old tap water.

For about $300, the average American can get a year's supply of tap water for everything from drinking to washing the car and doing the laundry. Or, that $300 could buy about 75 gallons of water with a fancy name.

The fact that consumers waste good money on 41 billion gallons of wet stuff every year would be comic if it weren't so tragic.

According to the EPI, 2.7 million tons of plastic are used bottling water every year, and 86 percent of bottles in America end up as trash. Then there's the oil burned hauling water all over the place.

For a fraction of what we spend on designer water, we could provide every person on earth with safe drinking water and sanitation, saving millions of lives -- most of them children.

Give that some thought next time you slurp on something called "Eau du Montagne" or "Mist of Majorca." Doesn't taste so sweet anymore, does it?

Life Lived In the Margin

2006-02-09T10:02:00.000-06:00

Isn’t it interesting that the biblical word for "Witness" is Martyr?

I guess it’s not surprising considering all of the things people went through for the cause of spreading the Good News. Being stoned to death, crucifixion, sawn in two, beheaded – these were the risks for living a life on the edge of God’s work.

Not a particularly inviting recruitment strategy, but effective nonetheless.

This is why it’s a bit concerning. There’s a lot of discussion about following God’s will for our lives – I see it in books, music and TV. Everyone is pushing people to the forefront saying this is where Believers need to be.

Unfortunately, there is a marginalized version of this message going out. A message that ensures the Believer comfort, safety and convenience. That if one is truly in the center of God’s will, they are protected from the harm that befalls others.

And therein lies the rub – the biblical characters found at the center of God’s will are the very one’s suffering, doing without and giving it all away for the sake of loving their neighbor.

Without jumping into a bunch of passages to prove something, think for a moment.

When was the last time you were faced with making a choice – confronted with a moral dilemma, or wondering if God was directing you properly – what was the overall deciding factor?

Was the decision you made at the time based on conviction or were you trying to avoid conflict with others, afraid of how the decision would affect your comfortable life, how it would look to others, and what you would have to sacrifice to make it happen?

I’m not the perfect decision maker here. Just asking a question.

Bono's best sermon yet . . .

2006-02-03T19:28:00.000-06:00

[transcript from Bono's speech to the National Prayer Breakfast]
If you're wondering what I'm doing here, at a prayer breakfast, well, so am I. I'm certainly not here as a man of the cloth, unless that cloth is leather. It's certainly not because I'm a rock star. Which leaves one possible explanation: I'm here because I've got a messianic complex.

Yes, it's true. And for anyone who knows me, it's hardly a revelation.

Well, I'm the first to admit that there's something unnatural...something unseemly...about rock stars mounting the pulpit and preaching at presidents, and then disappearing to their villas in the south of France. Talk about a fish out of water. It was weird enough when Jesse Helms showed up at a U2 concert...but this is really weird, isn't it?

You know, one of the things I love about this country is its separation of church and state. Although I have to say: in inviting me here, both church and state have been separated from something else completely: their mind.

Mr. President, are you sure about this?

It's very humbling and I will try to keep my homily brief. But be warned - I'm Irish.

I'd like to talk about the laws of man, here in this city where those laws are written. And I'd like to talk about higher laws. It would be great to assume that the one serves the other; that the laws of man serve these higher laws...but of course, they don't always. And I presume that, in a sense, is why you're here.

I presume the reason for this gathering is that all of us here - Muslims, Jews, Christians - all are searching our souls for how to better serve our family, our community, our nation, our God.

I know I am. Searching, I mean. And that, I suppose, is what led me here, too.

Yes, it's odd, having a rock star here - but maybe it's odder for me than for you. You see, I avoided religious people most of my life. Maybe it had something to do with having a father who was Protestant and a mother who was Catholic in a country where the line between the two was, quite literally, a battle line. Where the line between church and state was...well, a little blurry, and hard to see.

I remember how my mother would bring us to chapel on Sundays... and my father used to wait outside. One of the things that I picked up from my father and my mother was the sense that religion often gets in the way of God.

For me, at least, it got in the way. Seeing what religious people, in the name of God, did to my native land...and in this country, seeing God's second-hand car salesmen on the cable TV channels, offering indulgences for cash...in fact, all over the world, seeing the self-righteousness roll down like a mighty stream from certain corners of the religious establishment...

I must confess, I changed the channel. I wanted my MTV.

Even though I was a believer.

Perhaps because I was a believer.

I was cynical...not about God, but about God's politics. (There you are, Jim.)

Then, in 1997, a couple of eccentric, septuagenarian British Christians went and ruined my shtick - my reproachfulness. They did it by describing the millennium, the year 2000, as a Jubilee year, as an opportunity to cancel the chronic debts of the world's poorest people. They had the audacity to renew the Lord's call - and were joined by Pope John Paul II, who, from an Irish half-Catholic's point of view, may have had a more direct line to the Almighty.

'Jubilee' - why 'Jubilee'?

What was this year of Jubilee, this year of our Lord's favor?

I'd always read the scriptures, even the obscure stuff. There it was in Leviticus (25:35)...

'If your brother becomes poor,' the scriptures say, 'and cannot maintain himself...you shall maintain him.... You shall not lend him your money at interest, not give him your food for profit.'

It is such an important idea, Jubilee, that Jesus begins his ministry with this. Jesus is a young man, he's met with the rabbis, impressed everyone, people are talking. The elders say, he's a clever guy, this Jesus, but he hasn't done much...yet. He hasn't spoken in public before...

When he does, is first words are from Isaiah: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,' he says, 'because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.' And Jesus proclaims the year of the Lord's favour, the year of Jubilee (Luke 4:18).

What he was really talking about was an era of grace - and we're still in it.

So fast-forward 2,000 years. That same thought, grace, was made incarnate - in a movement of all kinds of people. It wasn't a bless-me club... it wasn't a holy huddle. These religious guys were willing to get out in the streets, get their boots dirty, wave the placards, follow their convictions with actions...making it really hard for people like me to keep their distance. It was amazing. I almost started to like these church people.

But then my cynicism got another helping hand.

It was what Colin Powell, a five-star general, called the greatest W.M.D. of them all: a tiny little virus called AIDS. And the religious community, in large part, missed it. The ones that didn't miss it could only see it as divine retribution for bad behaviour. Even on children...even [though the] fastest growing group of HIV infections were married, faithful women.

Aha, there they go again! I thought to myself judgmentalism is back!

But in truth, I was wrong again. The church was slow but the church got busy on this the leprosy of our age.

Love was on the move.

Mercy was on the move.

God was on the move.

Moving people of all kinds to work with others they had never met, never would have cared to meet...conservative church groups hanging out with spokesmen for the gay community, all singing off the same hymn sheet on AIDS...soccer moms and quarterbacks...hip-hop stars and country stars. This is what happens when God gets on the move: crazy stuff happens!

Popes were seen wearing sunglasses!

Jesse Helms was seen with a ghetto blaster!

Crazy stuff. Evidence of the spirit.

It was breathtaking. Literally. It stopped the world in its tracks.

When churches started demonstrating on debt, governments listened - and acted. When churches starting organising, petitioning, and even - that most unholy of acts today, God forbid, lobbying...on AIDS and global health, governments listened - and acted.

I'm here today in all humility to say: you changed minds; you changed policy; you changed the world.

Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.

Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.

I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.

God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. "If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places."

It's not a coincidence that in the scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It's not an accident. That's a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. (You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.) 'As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me' (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

Here's some good news for the president. After 9/11 we were told America would have no time for the world's poor. America would be taken up with its own problems of safety. And it's true these are dangerous times, but America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.

In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund - you and Congress - have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria.

Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud.

But here's the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There is much more to do. There's a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.

And finally, it's not about charity after all, is it? It's about justice.

Let me repeat that: It's not about charity, it's about justice.

And that's too bad.

Because you're good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can't afford it.

But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.

Sixty-five hundred Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about justice and equality.

Because there's no way we can look at what's happening in Africa and, if we're honest, conclude that deep down, we really accept that Africans are equal to us. Anywhere else in the world, we wouldn't accept it. Look at what happened in South East Asia with the tsunami. 150,000 lives lost to that misnomer of all misnomers, "mother nature." In Africa, 150,000 lives are lost every month. A tsunami every month. And it's a completely avoidable catastrophe.

It's annoying but justice and equality are mates. Aren't they? Justice always wants to hang out with equality. And equality is a real pain.

You know, think of those Jewish sheep-herders going to meet the Pharaoh, mud on their shoes, and the Pharaoh says, "Equal?" A preposterous idea: rich and poor are equal? And they say, "Yeah, 'equal,' that's what it says here in this book. We're all made in the image of God."

And eventually the Pharaoh says, "OK, I can accept that. I can accept the Jews - but not the blacks."

"Not the women. Not the gays. Not the Irish. No way, man."

So on we go with our journey of equality.

On we go in the pursuit of justice.

We hear that call in the ONE Campaign, a growing movement of more than 2 million Americans...Left and Right together... united in the belief that where you live should no longer determine whether you live.

We hear that call even more powerfully today, as we mourn the loss of Coretta Scott King - mother of a movement for equality, one that changed the world but is only just getting started. These issues are as alive as they ever were; they just change shape and cross the seas.

Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market...that's a justice issue. Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents...that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents...that's a justice issue.

And while the law is what we say it is, God is not silent on the subject.

That's why I say there's the law of the land, and then there is a higher standard. There's the law of the land, and we can hire experts to write them so they benefit us, so the laws say it's OK to protect our agriculture but it's not OK for African farmers to do the same, to earn a living?

As the laws of man are written, that's what they say.

God will not accept that.

Mine won't, at least. Will yours?

[pause]

I close this morning on...very...thin...ice.

This is a dangerous idea I've put on the table: my God vs. your God, their God vs. our God...vs. no God. It is very easy, in these times, to see religion as a force for division rather than unity.

And this is a town - Washington - that knows something of division.

But the reason I am here, and the reason I keep coming back to Washington, is because this is a town that is proving it can come together on behalf of what the scriptures call the least of these.

This is not a Republican idea. It is not a Democratic idea. It is not even, with all due respect, an American idea. Nor it is unique to any one faith.

'Do to others as you would have them do to you' (Luke 6:30). Jesus says that.

'Righteousness is this: that one should...give away wealth out of love for him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and the beggars and for the emancipation of the captives.' The Koran says that (2.177).

Thus sayeth the Lord: 'Bring the homeless poor into the house, when you see the naked, cover him, then your light will break out like the dawn and your recovery will speedily spring fourth, then your Lord will be your rear guard.' The Jewish scripture says that. Isaiah 58 again.

That is a powerful incentive: 'The Lord will watch your back.' Sounds like a good deal to me, right now.

A number of years ago, I met a wise man who changed my life. In countless ways, large and small, I was always seeking the Lord's blessing. I was saying, you know, I have a new song, look after it¿. I have a family, please look after them¿. I have this crazy idea...

And this wise man said: stop.

He said, stop asking God to bless what you're doing.

Get involved in what God is doing - because it's already blessed.

Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe, is what God is doing.

And that is what he's calling us to do.

I was amazed when I first got to this country and I learned how much some churchgoers tithe. Up to 10% of the family budget. Well, how does that compare with the federal budget, the budget for the entire American family? How much of that goes to the poorest people in the world? Less than 1%.

Mr. President, Congress, people of faith, people of America:

I want to suggest to you today that you see the flow of effective foreign assistance as tithing.... Which, to be truly meaningful, will mean an additional 1% of the federal budget tithed to the poor.

What is 1%?

1% is not merely a number on a balance sheet.

1% is the girl in Africa who gets to go to school, thanks to you. 1% is the AIDS patient who gets her medicine, thanks to you. 1% is the African entrepreneur who can start a small family business thanks to you. 1% is not redecorating presidential palaces or money flowing down a rat hole. This 1% is digging waterholes to provide clean water.

1% is a new partnership with Africa, not paternalism toward Africa, where increased assistance flows toward improved governance and initiatives with proven track records and away from boondoggles and white elephants of every description.

America gives less than 1% now. We're asking for an extra 1% to change the world. to transform millions of lives - but not just that and I say this to the military men now - to transform the way that they see us.

1% is national security, enlightened economic self-interest, and a better, safer world rolled into one. Sounds to me that in this town of deals and compromises, 1% is the best bargain around.

These goals - clean water for all; school for every child; medicine for the afflicted, an end to extreme and senseless poverty - these are not just any goals; they are the Millennium Development goals, which this country supports. And they are more than that. They are the Beatitudes for a globalised world.

Now, I'm very lucky. I don't have to sit on any budget committees. And I certainly don't have to sit where you do, Mr. President. I don't have to make the tough choices.

But I can tell you this:

To give 1% more is right. It's smart. And it's blessed.

There is a continent - Africa - being consumed by flames.

I truly believe that when the history books are written, our age will be remembered for three things: the war on terror, the digital revolution, and what we did - or did not to - to put the fire out in Africa.

History, like God, is watching what we do.

Thank you. Thank you, America, and God bless you all.

I want to read this book - badly.

2006-01-23T20:38:00.000-06:00

"The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity."

- Erwin McManus

He Who Knows Hobbits Better Than I

2006-01-04T22:14:00.000-06:00

"Not all who wander are lost."

-- J.R.R. Tolkien

My Very Own "Cynics Recovery Group"

2006-01-02T19:19:00.000-06:00

I'm a recovering cynic, and always will be.

First off, I'll start with a tad bit of history. Bare with me for a while here....

The ancient school of cynicism was founded in the fourth century B.C. by Antisthenes. The crew had a role model named Socrates, and they liked him. Maybe he was good with cars and girls or something, but what they really thought was good about him was that he was self-sufficient. They all tried to follow his example by getting each other to live in harmony with nature as well as rejecting all civilized luxuries. They didn't care at all about what people thought of them.

The name "cynic" actually comes from the Greek word kynikos. It means "dog-like." It seems that those old school cynics used to hang out together like a pack of dogs ripping it out of the pretentious men and women who they happened to see on the street.

Okay, so after reading all of this, I kept noticing how these guys were known for the way they respected and cared for their environment, turning their backs on our materialistic culture and daring to be different.

In Genesis 18, God sends three visitors to tell Abraham that his aging wife, Sarah, would have a baby. With the guests about to leave, the scene shifts. God considers the nearby city of Sodom and wonders about destroying it. Abraham gets God to agree with him that if 50 good people can be found, the city would be spared. God agrees. Abraham says, "ok, what about 45?" God agrees. 40? ok. 30? yes. 20? fine. 10? Go on, then.

So angels then visit the city. The citizens of Sodom try to rape them and only 4 decent people are found amongst all the inhabitants. The city gets destroyed, just as God suggested it would -- even before Abraham started the negotiations.

On a quick side note, this was the old testament, mind you. And God no longer shows his wrath or judgement on this world.

So here's my question: Why did God go through the motions if he new that Abraham's figure of 10 people being spared was too high and that the city was going to end up being trashed anyway?

So here's the answer: God wanted Abraham to ask, to get involved, to care about the state of his fellow man because that is precisely how we've been made. We're not here to soak up the blessing and ignore the responsibilities; we're not here to be kynikos, pouring out our cynicism and judgement from a distance. Instead we are here to get involved, to challenge, to care, to feel, to ask questions. We are supposed to be like those first Greek cynics.

Isn't there a place for cynicim's good side within the faith? There's value for the sort of mind that stops and asks questions and consistently trys to poke holes in the ever growing Christian bubble. Cynicism can be both a blessing and a curse.
I am willing to put it aside for the hope that God will bring a better tomorrow, and most of the time, my cynicism doesn’t allow for that alternative.

God wants us not to stay silent, but to be involved.

Not just within the walls of Church, Inc., but within our communities.

Right on, kynikos!

The Church of Me

2006-01-02T10:14:00.000-06:00

Just a video today.

New Happy Year.

2006-01-01T16:21:00.000-06:00

Missional Church

New Zealanders leading the Spiritual Journey

2005-12-31T10:09:00.000-06:00

From the article:

Cityside pastor Brenda Rockell thinks the mainstream churches "need to get a little bit more humble about hearing the stories of people's lives, actually hearing that God is already in people's lives and understanding that God can be there even if it's not in a traditional Christian way.

"I'd really like to see the church offering more rituals to interface with people's growing sense of spirituality; not just weddings and funerals, but offering things like baby blessings, house blessings, rituals for things like redundancy, moving into a retirement home, or having an abortion or a miscarriage," Rockell says.

"We don't do transitions very well in our culture. Change is happening very fast and we're not often equipped to manage that change, and I think that's something the church can offer."

This hunger for emotional engagement might help explain the growing popularity of evangelical and charismatic faiths, with their emphasis on self-discovery and personal journey, says Kevin Ward of Knox College.

"We threw out ritual and tradition as fast as we could but now people are wanting it back," Ward says, pointing out that Catholic and Orthodox faiths were among the few Christian denominations to rise in the 2001 census - the ones which do smells-and-bells best of all.

"Spirituality is not about having a few nice experiences, it's about how you live in the world, how you can help to transform society."

Notice Any Similarities?

2005-12-27T16:15:00.000-06:00

Quote of the Day

2005-12-21T19:42:00.000-06:00

It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.

Calvin & Hobbes

Word to Yo Mutha, John Lennon

2005-12-16T16:08:00.000-06:00

The church as a whole is failing my generation.

We don’t like it …we're acting out… some of its healthy, some of its not, but either way there’s a revolt at work against the way church is being done.

But change within the walls of the modern church is inevitable. We don't need another mega church full of lemmings following the status quo. We need a small number of individuals ready to commit to being true revolutionaries.

And are we guilty of using the term "revolution" too lightly?

A revolution is “a momentous change in a situation” (American Heritage Dictionary). 2000 years ago Jesus walked the earth and birthed the biggest revolution the church has ever seen. My generation will accept nothing less than a real experience with God. Jesus was and still is a revolutionary and He has called us to follow.

At a grass roots level, one heart at a time, God is birthing revolutionaries.

Webster defines a revolutionary as "someone committed to the thorough replacement of an established system of government in the hope of seeing radical change in society and social structures."

While I was reading George Barna's book, "Revolution", this stood out to me--

"Sometimes Revolutionaries are seen as narrow minded or uninteresting because of their laser-like focus on Revolutionary ideals. Their disregard for the world's (or the church's) applause, combined with their intense dissatisfaction with the existing reality, enables Revolutionaries to act in ways that capture the attention (good or bad) of the complacent masses. The passion and intensity that cause them to do what they believe is right, oblivious to public reaction, are simultaneously intriguing and scary to those who uphold the white-bread norm. In fact, this public fascination with and resistance to Revolutionaries' behavior serve to spur the change agents on to ever more advanced forms of transformational activity."

"In the end the revolution may be more about re-shaping the revolutionary than it is about altering the course of society."

I’m a gen-xer who grew up in the church. I want to experience God on a real level. Reading about it is fine, talking about it, ok fine, singing about it… ok… when do I experience it? I am sick of just hearing about it.

Actually, I think I have stopped listening. This is good, because it forces me to do the research on my own. To listen to someone bigger than the church. Because let's face it. The church isn't really the best example of Jesus the Revolutionary, is it?

Is that your rhetoric I’m stepping on?

2005-12-16T11:56:00.000-06:00

I’m a little disjointed lately. I have had a hard time expressing myself, so I’m going to just stream-of-conscious this one:

My religious or political affiliation should have nothing to do with me being a Christian.

I don’t believe TBN talking-heads have it all right, or marketing campaigns are changing the world, or labels to classify belief systems or the trendy club associations that go with them.

I don’t think anything should be labeled as, “Christian” (i.e. music, movies, fictional books, etc.).

I do not subscribe to the fabricated laws of religious man because it’s the status quo thing to do.

I subscribe to a Christ-like lifestyle because I think it is the right way to live.

I think generosity is what we are all supposed to do.

That justice and forgiveness are a given, and not an exception.

I believe being compassionate is a better way to go, and that judging others (no matter what the circumstance) ends up as just another non-productive.

I’m convinced that I don’t have all of the answers.

I think honesty with others and myself is a better way to live.

I think taking care of people's needs is a better act of love than any sermon.

I think it’s more important to be out in the world than in a church.

I believe feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are much more noble acts than building the next super-mega church.

That looking out for the fatherless and taking care of the widow are indeed the truest of all acts of religion.

I believe God loves me because of what he created in me, not by what my best efforts may be. He’s looking for me to be that person, and not how others are trying to influence me to be.

I know that God is looking for open and honest communication with His creation. That the purest prayer we could ever make is, “help…”

I believe He’s searching for those that simply don’t care what the rest think.

I believe the “best” Christian is not the one who frequents his local church, or gives the most money, or even recites the most scripture. The people that become God’s workmanship are the ones who hear His voice, sees the need and just obeys.

And I think the biggest battle we have here on earth is not homesexuality, democrats, terrorists or the devil.

It’s our own minds.

Jesus & His Jigsaw Puzzle

2005-12-14T14:27:00.000-06:00

Because this subject is a reoccuring pet peeve of mine, I decided to reprint this article from The Ooze.com:

"In handling the subject of ministry in the New Testament it is essential to remember the order in which the books of the New Testament were written. If we assume, as the order in which the books of the New Testament are now presented would lead us to assume, that the Gospels were written first, and then Acts and then the letters of Paul, beginning with Romans and ending with the Pastoral Epistles to Timothy to Titus and the Letter to Philemon, we shall never be able to understand the development of the institutions and the thought of the early church."
- Richard Hanson

Why is it that we Christians can divide up into thousands of different sects and all claim that we are following the Word of God? How is it that many of us can blithely embrace church practices and theological beliefs that are not rooted in Scriptural principle, yet read them back into the New Testament?

I submit that the problem is with our approach to the New Testament.

The approach most commonly used among modern Christians when studying the Bible is called "proof texting." The origin of proof texting goes back to the late 1590s. A group of men called Protestant Scholastics took the teachings of the Reformers and systematized them according to the rules of Aristotelian logic.

The Protestant Scholastics held that not only is the Scripture the Word of God, but every part of it is the Word of God in and of itself—irrespective of context. This set the stage for the idea that if we lift a verse out of the Bible, it is true in its own right and can be used to prove a doctrine or a practice.

When John Nelson Darby emerged in the mid 1800s, he built a theology based on this approach. Darby raised proof texting to an art form. In fact, it was Darby who gave fundamentalist and evangelical Christians a good deal of their presently accepted teachings. All of them are built on the proof texting method. Proof texting, then, became the way that we modern Christians approach the Bible. It is taught in every Protestant Bible school and seminary on earth.

As a result, we Christians rarely, if ever, get to see the NT as a whole. Rather, we are served up a dish of fragmented thoughts that are drawn together by means of fallen human logic. The fruit of this approach is that we have strayed far afield from the practice of the NT church. Yet we still believe we are being Biblical. Allow me to illustrate the problem with a fictitious story.

Meet Marvin Snurdly

Marvin Snurdly is a world renowned marital counselor. In his 20-year career as a marriage therapist, Marvin has counseled thousands of troubled marriages. He has an Internet presence. Each day hundreds of couples write letters to Marvin about their marital sob stories. The letters come from all over the globe. And Marvin answers them all.

A hundred years pass, and Marvin Snurdly is resting peacefully in his grave. He has a great, great grandson named Fielding Melish. Fielding decides to recover the lost letters of his great, great grandfather, Marvin Snurdly. But Fielding can only find 13 of Marvin’s letters. Out of the thousands of letters that Marvin wrote in his lifetime, only 13 have survived! Nine of them were written to couples in marital crisis. Four of them were written to individual spouses.

These letters were all written within a 20-year time frame: From 1980 to 2000. Fielding Melish plans to compile these letters into a volume. But there is something interesting about the way Marvin wrote his letters that makes Fielding’s task somewhat difficult.

First, Marvin had an annoying habit of never dating his letters. No days, months, or years appear on any of the 13 letters. Second, the letters only portray half the conversation. The initial letters written to Marvin that provoked his responses no longer exist. Consequently, the only way to understand the backdrop of one of Marvin’s letters is by reconstructing the marital situation from Marvin’s response.

Each letter was written at a different time, to people in a different culture, dealing with a different problem. For example, in 1985, Marvin wrote a letter to Paul and Sally from Virginia, USA who were experiencing sexual problems early in their marriage. In 1990, Marvin wrote a letter to Jethro and Matilda from Australia who were having problems with their children. In 1995, Marvin wrote a letter to a wife from Mexico who was experiencing a mid-life crisis.

Take note: 20 years—13 letters—all written to different people at different times in different cultures—all experiencing different problems.

It is Fielding Melish’s desire to put these 13 letters in chronological order. But without the dates, he cannot do this. So Fielding puts them in the order of descending length. That is, he takes the longest letter that Marvin wrote and puts it first. He puts Marvin’s second longest letter after that. He takes the third longest and puts it third. The compilation ends with the shortest letter that Marvin penned. 13 letters are arranged, not chronologically, but by their length.

The volume hits the presses and becomes an overnight best seller. People are buying it by the truck loads.

100 years pass and The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly compiled by Fielding Melish stands the test of time. The work is still very popular. Another 100 years pass, and this volume is being used copiously throughout the Western World. (Marvin has been resting in his grave for 300 years now.)

The book is translated into dozens of languages. Marriage counselors are quoting it left and right. Universities are employing it in their sociology classes. It is so widely used that someone gets a bright idea on how to make the volume easier to quote and handle.

What is that bright idea? It is to divide Marvin’s letters into chapters and numbered sentences (we call them verses). So chapters and verses are born in the Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly.

But by adding chapter-and-verse to these once living letters, something changes that goes unnoticed. The letters lose their personal touch. Instead, they take on the texture of a manual.

Different sociologists begin writing books about marriage and the family. Their main source? The Collected Works of Marvin Snurdly. Pick up any book in the 24th century on the subject of marriage, and you will find the author quoting chapters and verses from Marvin’s letters.

It usually looks like this: In making a particular point, an author will quote a verse from Marvin’s letter written to Paul and Sally. The author will then lift another verse from the letter written to Jethro and Matilda. He will extract another verse from another letter. Then he will sew these three verses together upon which he will build his particular marital philosophy.

Virtually every sociologist and marital therapist that authors a book on marriage does the same thing. Yet the irony is here. Each of these authors constantly contradicts the others, even though they are all using the same source!

But that is not all. Not only have Marvin’s letters been turned into cold prose when they were originally living, breathing epistles to real people in real places. But they have devolved into a weapon in the hands of agenda-driven men. Not a few authors on marriage begin employing isolated proof texts from Marvin’s work to hammer away at those who disagree with their marital philosophy.

How can they do this? How is this being done? How are all of these sociologists contradicting each other when they are using the exact same source!? It is because the letters have been lifted out of their historical context. Each letter has been plucked from its chronological sequence and taken out of its real life setting.

Put another way, the letters of Marvin Snurdly have been transformed into a series of isolated, disjointed, fragmented sentences—free for anyone to lift one sentence from one letter, another sentence from another letter, paste them together to create the marital philosophy of their choice.

An amazing story is it not? Well here is the punch line. Whether you realize it or not, I have just described your NT!

The Order of Paul's Letters

Your NT is made up mostly of Paul's letters. Paul of Tarsus wrote two thirds of it. He penned 13 letters in a 20-year time span. Nine letters were written to churches in different cultures, at different times, experiencing different problems. Four letters were written to individual Christians. The individuals who received those letters were also dealing with different issues at different times.

Take note: 20 years—13 letters—all written to different churches at different times in different cultures—all experiencing different problems.

In the early second century, someone took the letters of Paul and compiled them into a volume. The technical term for this volume is "canon." Scholars refer to this compiled volume as "the Pauline canon." It is essentially your NT with a few letters added afterwards, the four Gospels and Acts placed at the front, and Revelation tacked on the end.

At the time, no one knew when Paul's letters were written. Even if they did, it would not have mattered. There was no precedent for alphabetical or chronological ordering. The first-century Greco-Roman world ordered its literature according to decreasing length.

Look at how your NT is arranged. What do you find? Paul's longest letter appears first. It is Romans. 1 Corinthians is the second longest letter, hence the reason why it follows Romans. 2 Corinthians is the third longest letter. Your NT follows this pattern until you come to that tiny little book called Philemon.

Here is the present order as it appears in your NT. The books are arranged according to descending length:

Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians

Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon

What, then, is the proper chronological order of these letters? According to the best available scholarship, here is the order in which they were written:

Galatians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Romans
Colossians
Philemon
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Timothy
Titus
2 Timothy

The Addition of Chapters and Verses

In the year 1227, a professor at the University of Paris named Stephen Langton added chapters to all the books of the NT. Then in 1551, a printer named Robert Stephanus numbered the sentences in all of the books of the NT.

According to Stephanus' son, the verse divisions that his father created do not do service to the sense of the text. Stephanus did not use any consistent method. While riding on horseback from Paris to Lyons, he versified the entire NT within Langton's chapter divisions.

So verses were born in the pages of holy writ in the year 1551. And since that time God's people have approached the NT with scissors and glue, cutting-and-pasting isolated, disjointed sentences from different letters, lifting them out of their real-life setting and lashing them together to build floatable doctrines. Then calling it "the Word of God."

This half-baked approach still lives in our seminaries, Bible colleges, churches, Bible studies, and (tragically) our house churches today. Most Christians are completely out of touch with the social and historical events that lay behind each of the NT letters. Instead, they have turned the NT into a manual that can be wielded to prove any point. Chopping the Bible up into fragments makes this relatively easy to pull off.

How We Approach the NT

We Christians have been taught to approach the Bible in one of seven ways. See how many you can tick off with a pencil that apply to you:

1) You look for verses that inspire you. Upon finding such verses, you either highlight, memorize, meditate upon, or put them on your refrigerator door.

2) You look for verses that tell you what God has promised so that you can confess it in faith and thereby obligate the Lord to do what you want. (If you are part of the "name-it-claim-it," "blab-it-grab-it" movement, you are masterful at doing this.)

3) You look for verses that tell you what God commands you to do.

4) You look for verses that you can quote to scare the devil out of his wits or resist him in the hour of temptation.

5) You look for verses that will prove your particular doctrine so that you can slice-and-dice your theological sparring partner into Biblical ribbons. (Because of the proof-texting method, a vast wasteland of Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random, de-contextualized verse of Scripture ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.)

6) You look for verses in the Bible to control and/or correct others.

7) If you are a preacher, you look for verses that "preach" well for next Sunday morning's sermon. (This is an on-going addiction for preachers. It is so ingrained that many of them are incapable of reading their Bibles in any way other than to hunt for sermon material.)

Now look at this list again. Did you find yourself there? Notice how each of these approaches is highly individualistic. All of them put you, the individual Christian, at the center. Each approach ignores the fact that most of the NT was written to corporate bodies of people (churches), not to individuals.

But that is not all. Each of these approaches is built on isolated proof-texting. They treat the NT like a manual and blind us to its real message. It is no wonder that we can approvingly nod our heads at paid pastors, the Sunday morning order of worship, sermons, church buildings, religious costumes, choirs, worship teams, seminaries, and a passive priesthood—all without wincing.

We have been taught to approach the Bible like a jigsaw puzzle. For most of us, we have never been told the entire story that lies behind the letters that Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude wrote. We have been taught chapters and verses, not the historical context.

Needed: A New Approach to the New Testament

What is needed is a brand new approach to the New Testament. An approach not based in the New Testament letters as they are arranged in our Bible. But an approach that is based in "the story" . . . which blends together Acts and the Epistles in chronological order.

If every Christian, pastors and Bible teachers included, would obtain a panoramic view of the first-century church in its chronological and socio-historical setting, it would revolutionize the Christian landscape today. The following are four specific ways in which this revolution could take place in your own life.

First, understanding the story of the NT church will give you a whole new understanding of each NT letter—an understanding that is rich, accurate, and exciting. You will be ushered into the living, breathing atmosphere of the first century. You will taste what went on in the writers’ hearts when they penned their letters. The circumstances they addressed will be made plain. The people to whom they wrote will come to life.

No longer will you see the Epistles as sterile, complicated reads. Instead, they will turn into living, breathing voices that are part of a living, breathing story. The result? You will grasp the NT like never before! NT scholar F.F. Bruce once made the statement that reading the letters of Paul is like hearing one side of a telephone conversation. This book reconstructs “the other side.”

Second, understanding the story will help you see “the big picture” that undergirds the events that followed the birth of the church and its subsequent growth. This “big picture” has at its center an unbroken pattern of God’s working. And this pattern reflects God’s ultimate goal—which is to have a community on this earth that expresses His nature in a visible way. This theme of a God-ordained community constitutes a unifying thread that runs throughout the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Therefore, reading this book will not only help you to better understand your NT, it will also give you a fresh look at God’s eternal purpose…that which is closest to His heart.

Third, understanding the story of the NT church will supply you with the proper historical context which will enable you to accurately apply Scripture to your own life. Christians routinely take verses out of context and misapply them to their daily living. Seeing the Scripture in its proper historical context will safeguard you from making this all-too common mistake.

Fourth, understanding the story will forever deliver you from the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study that dominates evangelical thinking today. What is the “cut-and-paste” approach to Bible study? It is the common practice of coming to the NT with scissors and glue, clipping and then pasting disjointed sentences (verses) together from Books that were written decades apart.

This “cut-and-paste” approach has spawned all sorts of spiritual hazards. One of them being the popular practice of lashing verses together to build floatable doctrines. Another is that of “proof-texting” to win theological arguments. (A vast majority of Western Christianity behaves as if the mere citation of some random and de-contexualized verse ends all discussion on virtually all subjects.)

The Medievals called this “cut-and-paste” method “a string-of-pearls.” You take one text, find some remote metaphorical connection with another text, and voilá, an ironclad doctrine is born! But this is a pathetic approach to understanding the Bible. While it is great for reading one’s own biases into the text, it is horrible for understanding the intent of the biblical authors.

It has been rightly said that a person can prove anything by taking Bible verses out of context. Let me demonstrate how one can “biblically” prove that it is God’s will for believers to commit suicide. All you have to do is lift two verses out of their historical setting and paste them together:

“And he [Judas]…went and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). “Then said Jesus…‘Go, and do thou likewise’ ” (Luke 10:37b).

While this is an outrageous example of the “cut-and-paste” approach, it makes a profound point. Without understanding the historical context of the NT, Christians have managed to build doctrines and invent practices that have fragmented the Body of Christ into thousands of denominations. Understanding the sequence of each NT Book and the socio-historical setting that undergirds them is one remedy for this problem.[1]

I have stated four reasons why rediscovering the NT story is a worthwhile endeavor. But there is one more reason. There is a very good chance that it will revolutionize your Christian life and your relationship with your Lord!

This article has been excerpted from Frank Viola's book Pagan Christianity: The Origins of Our Modern Church Practices and The Untold Story of the New Testament Church

Why hast thou forsaken me?

2005-12-06T21:58:00.000-06:00

-7˚F

Church, Inc.

2005-12-04T18:10:00.000-06:00

Modern church is certainly having its struggles. Having been modeled nearly 50 years ago – much of the typical structure remains intact, only the cosmetics have changed.

As the rest of the world slowly slid toward the post-modern mindset, the church continued to rework their own model with changes in formulas, step-by-step procedures and other shortened, abbreviated, over-simplified methods of success in growing toward God.

Not sure how it got to this point - perhaps it was our consumerist tendencies that drove marketing concepts (like our recent past – WWJD, Born Again, etc.) These are campaigned as slogans, markers for others to know who’s on whose side. But Jesus never talked about badges, or slogans to prove who we were. He said, “They will know you are Christians by your love for one another.” I don’t see a whole lot of Christians by that definition.

Perhaps it was the influence of corporate culture. Church, or rather Pastors have bought into the idea that they are the CEOs that must set the example. And most of us have contributed to that, especially through the eighties and early nineties when church leaders were very publicly dropping like flies.

In order to protect themselves, most persons of the cloth drew back from their congregations. Whether by self-preservation or pride, whatever the reason, these persons distanced themselves so as to perpetuate the mystique of being better people than the rest of us. This propagated a corporate culture - the leader never minces with the subjects of his leadership.

As such, churches across America unwittingly subscribed to a new interpretation of community based on a messed up leadership model. The model they now have might better be described as a tour guide. As a tour guide, the pastor shows everyone the highlights, making brief commentary that’s safe for public consumption but crafted so as not to offend or challenge. Keep the tour moving along - never stopping for questions. Make it safe for job security sake.

But no one ever really gets to know his or her tour guide. They pay their fee for admission and move on. Everyone wins, no one gets offended, and nobody gets hurt. Right?

But relationships are not based on safety. Relationships are based on trust. Caring enough to say whatever needs to be said - for our own good. Being vulnerable enough to let others see your weakness, and realize, "oh yeah, that person is just like me. He's having difficulties, challenges, doubts and fears -- just like me."

And isn't that the point. We're all human, not super-humans.

This is our condition, and we need to realize we have much more in common than we have in differences. Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Agnostic, whatever. Communities are based on commonalities, not differences.

Perhaps its too idealistic, but this is why the church needs to change – not just for the benefit of its own believers, but for everyone seeking a faith journey.

What Does it Mean to Really Forgive?

2005-12-04T08:34:00.000-06:00

Dear God,

I am having a dilemma.

I can't seem to get over bitterness, resentment and complete and total dislike for someone in my life that put me and my family through such pain. I mean, I can feel it deep down and it's been a year already, and it still feels like yesterday. I didn't really realize all of these feelings were there until recently. I thought I was over it. I thought I was over the belittling, the mean spirited uncaring attitudes that he had for us. We poured our entire lives for almost a year into his life. Being mislead by "serving" him. What was it all for, God?

I don't mean to single out just one individual, but sometimes it's easier to blame a whole load of feelings on one person. There were others. Others who hurt me. These individuals told me they loved me and my family. They said they felt that "you brought us together for a purpose." Why do people say things and then justify them by using Your name?

Help me to forgive these people. Help me to give them grace. Not only because it's what I want in return, but because it's how you would treat the situation. I want to love like you do, but right now it's so hard for me. My true feelings want revenge. My true feelings want them to suffer for what they did. My true feelings want them to feel the pain. Feel the pain so deep down that they come running to me to apologize and kiss my ass. I never got that apology. It's like they chewed us up and spit us out to fend for ourselves.

I refuse to be "damaged goods." I refuse to carry all of that extra "baggage." Because let’s face it. It would be way too heavy.

This is why I need you, God. I need you to show me how you want me to treat these individuals. One of them has recently come back into our lives and I've realized that I still have major resentment issues. I don't want these feelings to affect how I treat others. I expected so much more from this person. Expecting too much from people gives me reason to judge them if they don't live up to my expectations.

I ask that you heal my heart. I ask that you heal my family. I ask that you show me what real forgiveness is. I thought I forgave him, but I now realize I was fooling myself. I give it to you. I don't want this hurting my heart any longer. I don't want it waking me in the middle of the night. I don't want it a part of my life. It's been affecting me for way too long.

I am ready to forgive. I am ready to let go of this and move on.

Love Trumps Karma

2005-12-04T00:03:00.000-06:00

Several months ago I had come across a book called, Love Trumps Karma that I thought looked interesting. Lately I've been starting a lot of books at the same time and it seems to be taking me even more time to finish them. I have not read Love Trumps Karma as of yet, but will shortly. I love how the author looks more for the commonalities between faiths rather than dividing them. Here is an article/review from the ooze.

What we must gently maintain is that although Truth itself has not changed, our cultural landscape has. Efforts of the past are losing relevance by the day, and Henley reminds us that while Christians are supposed to be the most loving people on earth, our Hindu, Buddhist and New Age neighbors are often kinder, more generous and less judgmental. They see the Bible as a rulebook for a condemning, narrow-minded religion.

How tragic that the matchless love in the Gospel of Christ has become synonymous with harsh dogma and unsympathetic law!

Baptist scholar sounds a warning to ‘emerging church'

2005-11-29T18:17:00.000-06:00

Here's an interesting article.

“It seems that the central problem with the emerging church ... is that in its zeal to respond to postmodern culture in a way that is evangelistically effective and personally and ecclesiologically refreshing, they have not yet carefully critiqued postmodernism,” Hammett continued. “Without such critique, there is a real danger that the movement will appropriate elements of postmodern thought that cannot be integrated into a genuinely evangelical Christian worldview.”

So - I ask you - what is a genuine evangelical Christian worldview?

Is there such a thing?

Human Doing ... or ... Human Being?

2005-11-19T14:39:00.000-06:00

Here's a thought, "Don’t try to do better; just become the you that's you."

But isn’t the Christian life supposed to be about becoming a better Christian?
Reading the Bible more.
Praying more.
Not swearing.
No drinking.
Don't smoke.
Be nice.
Be good.
Be better.

Kind of like that classic Adam Ant song, "Goody Two Shoes?" Don't drink, don't smoke - What do you do? Sudden inuendo follows, must be something inside.

I don’t know about you, but that's not particularly inspiring to me.

It lack's that certain 'freedom' appeal.

Is life really supposed to be about doing the right things? Have we slipped so far as to think a God following lifestyle is all about being percieved as a better Christian?

I'm pretty sure God wants us to know that He never intended for our lives to be this dutiful pursuit of morality - paying pennance for all the world to see.

He designed us to live from our hearts and to follow after the desires He placed there. This ‘do everything the right way’ gospel seems to more accurately reflect the way of the Pharisees – the religious folk of the day - whom Jesus enraged with his message of grace, love and forgiveness.

Anyone who trys to appear like all is good and right, so that everyone around them feels they are a righteous dude is quite contrary to the point. The message Jesus spoke about was having a heart inwardly right before God.

Look what it says here: You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You burnish the surface of your cups and bowls so they sparkle in the sun, while the insides are maggoty with your greed and gluttony. Stupid Pharisee! Scour the insides, and then the gleaming surface will mean something. You're hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You're like manicured grave plots, grass clipped and the flowers bright, but six feet down it's all rotting bones and worm-eaten flesh. People look at you and think you're saints, but beneath the skin you're total frauds. – Matthew 23:25-28 from The Message translation

The Pharisees were all about duty – do this, but don’t do that.

Jesus’ message was all about desire, freedom, and hope.

Which sounds more appealing to you?

The real message of Christianity is the ability for man to enjoy an intimate relationship with his creator. It's about heart to heart.

What happened to that message?

It’s so simple. We know in our heads it's true, and yet we continue to live by the ‘be better’ gospel.

Salvation is not and never will be by anything we do. Nothing we can do will ever change God's thought, opinion, or acceptance of us.

He loves us just the way he made us.

So - it's much less about doing the right things. It's about being that person He made you to be. If you can master that, then you'll always be the best you... you'll ever be.

When holiness goes to crap

2005-11-15T11:09:00.000-06:00

I like radio as much as or more than the next guy. One thing that peeves me is dead air. That and when a DJ starts yapping and there’s no music bed behind him. If it’s talk radio, then by all means, I expect to hear just voices. But any self-respecting radio station should know better than just to talk without a little music dribbling through in the background.

But maybe it’s just a preference thing. I prefer the music in the background.

So today, I’m scanning through stations and happen upon a local Christian radio station. They are having a fund drive for supporters of the station. And the DJ’s are yapping, “we’ve just received a challenge – in the next hour Dr. So-n-So has pledged to match dollar for dollar up to $1000!”

They then interviewed him to ask why he supports local Christian Radio (which is mostly satellite feed from Nashville anyway, but I digress). His reasoning? “When a patient walks through my reception area and comments they heard me on the radio, that’s when I know it’s working.”

Notice the rationale here. He is being noticed. His practice is being noticed. Nothing about whether religious radio is actually helping anyone. No talk about pitching in so the poor can pay rent. Not even lip service for housing for the homeless. No, in the real world, this is called advertising. But in Christendom, it’s re-packaged as “support or contribution.” May I be the one to cry, “8u11 $h1t!” on this?

This man is an advertiser just like all the other “sponsors” or "contributors" who donate to various endeavors just so their name will be seen or heard. Their company is being promoted. Their cause for supporting is justified in their own eyes.

Isn’t this just a load of rhetoric crap? The Religious world is pawning off “contributions” as a way to help our community, as in, “we are reaching” our listeners. Helping with what? Leveraging flawed belief systems? Unfortunately, the scheme plays into hapless lemming propaganda – they march off embracing the radio station (or whatever the religious flavor of the day is) and parading all of its benefits!

I’m sorry, but I can’t stomach it.

Here me on this, readers – The way of Jesus’ teaching had nothing to do with Marketing, Branding, Product Placement, Advertising, or Corporate Imaging. Nothing was mentioned in the, “giving to get” department. He abhorred public recognition – there are instances where he requested of those he helped not to tell anyone.

Can we look at this for what it is?

Whenever we are contributing to something in the hopes of receiving recognition or endorsement, we are dead wrong. The Christ-like believers are charged with giving our lives away. The right hand is never to know what our left hand is giving. Our “giving” is to be made for God’s eyes only, with a priority for the Lost, the Last and the Least of society – yet our Christian marketplace caters to the wealthy, the camera-friendly, and morally astute.

It’s as if Jesus were a bought and paid for Republican. He is not. Nor is He a Democrat for that matter. He stood for justice, equality, integrity, selflessness, authenticity and compassion, but strayed from political affiliations.

Remember this little snippet, “bless those that persecute you or despitefully use you?”

“Love your neighbor as much, or more than you love yourself?”

Or another timeless classic, “take care of the fatherless and the poor.”

That’s the music we should be playing in the background. They will know us by our love for one another, not for the packaging of lifeless, hollow words.