Legalizing Sin

* I wrote this in light of the conversations in Christian circles surrounding Obama's recent statement about condoning same-sex marriage.

At the risk of being unpopular among my fellow Christians, and the benefit of not being censored, I'm going to respond to Kevin DeYoung's recent article from The Gospel Coalition, point by point, 1 through 5, using scripture. Why? Because I think he is dead wrong, and his conclusions are seductively unChristian. Christians should not continue to oppose gay marriage. Some of the logical fallacies DeYoung presents are blatantly obvious, so rather than pointing them out, I'm going to stick with using some of Jesus' parables for my arguments against them. My interpretation of these parables, I should note, do not reflect their only application, and if you think I am misguided, by all means let me know with a comment. I intend to use this as a platform for truth, and make no reservation for unaccountability for myself.

Let me start by eliminating some false presuppositions based on my premise that may be unclear: I believe the Bible to be God's infallible scripture, and therefore acknowledge that the Bible explicitly calls Sodomy 'moral sin' (Jude 1:7, Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, 1 Timothy 1:9-11) according to Christianity.

*Edit: The NIV translates this as "Homosexuality", which may or may not fit with the original understanding of the word; I'm simply neutral on this issue at the moment, and the following argument does not address this nor seek to persuade you either way.

So we begin...

1. Every time the issue of gay marriage has been put to a vote by the people, the people have voted to uphold traditional marriage. Even in California. In fact, the amendment passed in North Carolina on Tuesday by a wider margin (61-39) than a similar measure passed six years ago in Virginia (57-42). The amendment passed in North Carolina, a swing state Obama carried in 2008, by 22 percentage points. We should not think that gay marriage in all the land is a foregone conclusion. To date 30 states have constitutionally defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

 If a Christian has an issue with changing a traditional constitution, we must consider what is at stake if we don't change. As in the parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:3-7), The Good Shepherd willingly leaves his flock to search for the one who is lost. In order for this analogy to function, one requires the freedom to wander. What is at stake here is not even traditional marriage, per se; it is the oppression of freedom. The constitutional definition of marriage is not the definition as God has defined it. Christian marriage is between God and man. What God has joined together cannot be written and signed by our government to make it any more official. The ones who are lost are the ones in need of being validated as humans with rights. If the majority of people vote for something different than the garden of eden (where choice is freedom), and call it God's ideal, I think we're way off.

2. The promotion and legal recognition of homosexual unions is not in the interest of the common good. That may sound benighted, if not bigoted. But we must say it in love: codifying the indistinguishability of gender will not make for the “peace of the city.” It rubs against the grain of the universe, and when you rub against the grain of divine design you’re bound to get splinters. Or worse. The society which says sex is up to your own definition and the family unit is utterly fungible is not a society that serves its children, its women, or its own long term well being.

A society that relies on its government to define things such as sexual orientation is not a solution for gender confusion. This can be likened to putting a lamp under a bowl (Luke 8:16–18) in that government is elevated to uphold the morals of Jesus by creating a new norm, when in fact, this is idolatry. The only way to uphold Christian morals effectively is apart from the state, so that the light of Jesus can be visible. When we rely on government to uphold family values, we can expect things like gender distinguishability to be taken from us. Besides all this, it is benighted and bigoted to presuppose that homosexual parents desire to control the sexual orientation of their children.

3. Marriage is not simply the term we use to describe those relationships most precious to us. The word means something and has meant something throughout history. Marriage is more than a union of hearts and minds. It involves a union of bodies–and not bodies in any old way we please, as if giving your cousin a wet willy in the ear makes you married. Marriage, to quote one set of scholars, is a” comprehensive union of two sexually complementary persons who seal (consummate or complete) their relationship by the generative act—by the kind of activity that is by its nature fulfilled by the conception of a child. So marriage itself is oriented to and fulfilled by the bearing, rearing, and education of children.” This conjugal view of marriage states in complex language what would have been a truism until a couple generations ago. Marriage is what children (can) come from. Where that element is not present (at the level of sheer design and function, even if not always in fulfillment), marriage is not a reality. We should not concede that “gay marriage” is really marriage. What’s more, as Christians we understand that the great mystery of marriage can never be captured between a relationship of Christ and Christ or church and church.

The church lost the right to define legal marriage when we accepted tax benefits for married couples. Personally, I don't consider a marriage to be Christian unless the people in it are Christians. It's a different set of vows altogether. We can easily fall victim to judging others, to which I'm quickly reminded that while I was dead in sin, Christ died so I may live. The parable of the Two Debtors (Luke 7:36-47) shows us how more debt requires more grace, and pointing out when someone else doesn't measure up to my morals shows how little I could possibly love anyone.

4. Allowing for the legalization of gay marriage further normalizes what was until very recently, and still should be, considered deviant behavior. While it’s true that politics is downstream from culture, it’s also true that law is one of the tributaries contributing to culture. In our age of hyper-tolerance we try to avoid stigmas, but stigmas can be an expression of common grace. Who knows how many stupid sinful things I’ve been kept from doing because I knew my peers and my community would deem it shameful. Our cultural elites may never consider homosexuality shameful, but amendments that define marriage as one man and one woman serve a noble end by defining what is as what ought to be. We do not help each other in the fight for holiness when we allow for righteousness to look increasingly strange and sin to look increasingly normal.

Imposing Christian morals on society is no way to legislate a standard for living, let alone define deviant behaviour. Christianity, like [most] religions, is an opt-in relationship, and to say anything about someone who hasn't made that choice (and therefore doesn't accept our definition of sin), is simply inappropriate—EVEN IF our standards are too high for ourselves. The law was written on the hearts of man for the exclusive right of God to convict. Heterosexual marriage does not define nobility any more than being right handed. What defines nobility is the quality of your marriage. Righteousness will not look strange so long as we appear to be Wheat Among Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30). Since you and I as Christ-followers are mere servants, leave the harvesting to the harvesters.

5. We are naive if we think a laissez faire compromise would be enjoyed by all if only the conservative Christians would stop being so dogmatic. The next step after giving up the marriage fight is not a happy millennium of everyone everywhere doing marriage in his own way. The step after surrender is conquest. I’m not suggesting heterosexuals would no longer be able to get married. What I am suggesting is that the cultural pressure will not stop with allowing for some “marriages” to be homosexual. It will keep mounting until all accept and finally celebrate that homosexuality is one of Diversity’s great gifts. The goal is not for different expressions of marriage, but for the elimination of definitions altogether. Capitulating on gay marriage may feel like giving up an inch in bad law to gain a mile in good will. But the reality will be far different. For as in all of the devil’s bargains, the good will doesn’t last nearly so long as the law.

Besides being a slippery-slope fallacy in logic, this is also classic fear-mongering against an alleged agenda which should really have no bearing on how we should respond to them as people. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–37) shows us how to love someone with an affliction, counter to religious priorities or consequences. Upholding the law as a levite or priest ultimately has greater implications for choosing to not get one's hands dirty. Surrendering an agenda of building a Christianized empire for the sake of someone's human rights is a worthwhile investment that will not go unnoticed. Not to mention, that's what Jesus would do.


Obviously I may have raised some further questions, for example, Should the church marry gay Christians? I think this comes down to personal conviction, as performing the wedding would ultimately recognize the marriage as before God, at least in appearance. Although, it sounds rather odd to want that—God's blessing to redefine a covenant that perfects the union of man with woman.

Due Diligence

This blog post is my response to a series of questions my friend raised regarding my criticism of Creationism. I felt this would be a better fit for my answers than the platform of our original conversation. 

1. Why do you think the debate regarding creationism (and its offshoots and various understandings - which according to your earlier blog about offshoots being at a point closest to true revelation, there seem to be more offshoots from creationist thought than evolutionist thought (perhaps unity of a theory/belief represents truth more?) - and evolution, continues today?

Firstly, I think Christian creationism is better contrasted to Non-Christian creationism (to explain how variance equates closer truth in this case), rather than evolution. Eg., Who is the creator god, Yahweh or Brahma, and how did creation come about?

I found a great summary of the varied offshoots of Creationism, which does an excellent job of explaining this further. Understanding this, we can see that Christianity has been more reluctant to drop biblical allegories in favor of evolution, and has in effect, retrofitted evolutionary explanations into biblical fundamentals to create the various offshoots we see present.

I think the debate continues to happen when we eisegete scripture, taking liberties based on its presupposed inerrancy. The debate is unfruitful, not because discussion about our origins shouldn't happen, but because we enter the discussion from an unfounded reverence for the prooftexts. I believe the Bible is a collection of books, supernaturally infallible for the purpose of pointing us to Jesus. If someone wants to make it a textbook of science, which it was never intended to be, we have warnings against such practice and should not be so ignorant.


2. Does which side one person falls on matter?

Yes, but I think this is better understood in a different way.

• Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure above), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum. The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.
• 
  
• CREATION
  • Flat Earthers
  • Geocentrists
  • Young Earth Creationists
    • (Omphalos)
  • Old Earth Creationists
    • (Gap Creationism)
    • (Day-Age Creationism)
    • (Progressive Creationism)
    • (Intelligent Design Creationism)
  • Evolutionary Creationists
  • Theistic Evolutionists
  • Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
  • Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
• EVOLUTION

3. If yes, why?

Watch out for false prophets! They dress up like sheep, but inside they are wolves who have come to attack you.
- Matthew 7:15

Looking at the continuum, I think it is evident where Young Earth Creationists fail to contribute to any discussion on the matter of Origin. Eg.,You will never get a Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionist to consider the earth as flat, or the centre of our galaxy, so why would they consider it to be 6,000 years old? Besides the recession of logic, this does not expound any scientific mystery.

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture:

• Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
• The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
• The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
• The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
• The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Young Earth Creation apologists believe the Origin of Life is narrated in Genesis, and any evidence must fit into the narrative to be considered valid. This is a classic example of a doctrine as the central ideal fallacy, and is also the reason why discerning bad theology matters. Christianity has to reflect reality—not the other way around.

4. Why do you think non-christians bring this matter up? Do they really care or is it just to justify not believing?

Invoking the supernatural is the dead-end to further inquiry.
- Anonymous

I think non-christians do care for the most part, otherwise they wouldn't ask. Creationism is not an easy (or necessary) hurdle, and there are more important things at stake if Jesus is who he says he is. But to the seeker who asks for evidence of 6 day creation, I would rather answer "No, I don't believe the Bible was written to be a book of science." If they have any more questions, they'll ask.

5. How do you think a creationist world view versus an evolutionist world view (or Big Bang theorist's view) affects [a Christian's] own narrrative framework for interpretting life? (more sucinctly: What does a belief in creationism or evolution look like through the eyes of [a Christian] interpreting life...do they really differ in perspective enough for this view to matter?)

I think Theistic Evolutionists have a better worldview than Young Earth Creationists for two reasons:

1. Their faith is informed by the reality around them, which permeates everything from the way they read scripture to how they respond to scepticism, ultimately leading to a fuller appreciation for God's creation.
2. They do not get overwhelmed by defending Old Testament paradoxes; they generally get asked better questions by non-christians.

St. Anselm described theology as "Faith seeking understanding" and theistic evolutionists believe that this search for understanding extends to scientific understanding. 'Young Earthers' also make this claim, but they are either lying (to themselves), or they don't understand the process.

I am sending you like lambs into a pack of wolves. So be as wise as snakes and as innocent as doves.
- Matthew 10:16

6. If the debate was to be settled, what do you hope it looks like? Where do you think this should lead? What are you hoping changes/stays the same in Christianity with respect to the interpretation and application of Genesis? (What does your vision of the future of Christianity look like?)

I think the only way to settle the debate is to concede that if you look around, creation itself tells us the universe is more than 6,000 years old.

It should lead to repentance, thus producing a change in the handling of scripture. Presupposition is not welcome, and is never helpful for theology or apologetics.

In short, I think the future of Christianity needs to drop the presupposition of Biblical inerrancy.

7. We can point out flaws better than most I think, but can we imagine something better? 

When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I didn’t come preaching God’s secrets to you like I was an expert in speech or wisdom.  I had made up my mind not to think about anything while I was with you except Jesus Christ, and to preach him as crucified.
- 1 Corinthians 2:1-2

Ultimately, we should not claim anything at all. Science and scripture inform our worldview, but Jesus is the essence of our worldview. However, claiming nothing cannot be our true contrition if we maintain a Young Earth perspective, if you concede that the stars are visible, for example.

That said, I imagine a kind of Christianity where Jesus is the only controversy worth talking about, debating over, or dying for. I want nothing less to be a hinderance for a questioning mind.

8. This is the heart of my questions...what can/should the church of tomorrow look like? 

I think my purpose (and the purpose of this blog) is to inspire the church to keep asking that very question.

Some of the questions I have for the "church of tomorrow" are:

• Can we find God in a Methodological or Philosophical Materialistic worldview?
• Should we study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural?
• Could science lead us to a greater understanding and appreciation for our creator?
• When does God interact with creation, and can we define these interactions as supernatural?
• What are the problems for anti-theists?
• What can we learn from Progressive-Christianity (questioning traditions) and Christian Existentialism (choice constitutes your existence)?
• Are we using proof-texts to support any other theology? Are there other ways we misuse scripture?
• How is social media best used as a platform for discussion?
• What are the fruits (good or bad) of memes, rage comics, or trolling?
• Do we need to keep repeating the mistakes of our past in order to engage culture appropriately?

9. What is the potential good that can occur/be achieved (in church and in the world)?

I found that Young Earth Creationism (even when I never talked about it publicly) limited my ability to test scripture against the reality it claimed to have relevance for. Giving up this presupposition allowed me to ask myself the questions that really troubled me, and allowed me to discover the answers that exist in reality, and not just believe them because the Bible told me so. It helped my faith.

10. I ask these because I'm curious. There is a lot of pointing of fingers, labeling, disagreements, etc. but repeatedly I find myself frustrated because while we point, we do little to imagine (or if we do, to explain) a different way / a better way... The Bible says that without vision the people perish... Where is the vision?.... What's your vision?

No-one is asking which god created the universe anymore, and the world has bigger questions than how God did it. So turning a stumbling block into a stepping stone is, in my opinion, the best use of our time.

What did Paul learn from the pagans in Mars Hill? The pagans worshipped an unknown god, by making sacrifices to idols of gold and silver. Paul taught them that God made us in His image, so these things have no resemblance. Today, our challenge is humanism (go figure). Science worships the unknown, but they have dropped the god.

My vision is to see Christianity cater to this mystery.

I think the Gospel needs to be presented the way Jesus presented it, as a hidden pearl: easily trampled, often overlooked—but, once found, worth selling everything you own.
- Matthew 7:6, 13:45-46

The Existential Compass

In the world of science, a paradigm is used to understand concepts. Paradigms are found anywhere a concept is unclear or requires greater understanding. Democracy, for example, is a paradigm that allows us to best understand governance, but there are many ways to govern. Perfection of government has long been an interest for humanity. How do we measure potential perfection? One tool in use today is the "political compass".

The political compass is a multi-axis model, used to label or organize political thought on two dimensions. This helps us grasp the "centrist's" idealistic goal as we navigate the extremes, and see what is needed to bring correction.

Economic and Personal Liberties vs Securities are being measured in this example. It is how we determine where political thought falls in relation to the centrist, or the ideal. Of course, there are different opinions about what the ideal looks like, and there have been both great and terrible leaders representing all walks of life. But I think the closer we are to the centre, the better our leaders tend to be. In trying to achieve that, the recursive action we take is to vote counter to the political norm, swinging the pendulum the opposite way. The political compass can help us measure and possibly predict the outcome for the counterbalance. I am sure you can find other scenarios where this compass could be useful.

To SIN means "to miss the mark". What is this mark? What is the centrist's ideal that we define sin according to? What are the axis on this compass? What are the extremes?

In the pursuit of bringing people to truth, the ongoing discussion revolves around what we believe to be true. But we are bound to come across people with a difference of opinion, perhaps even a polarizing conflict. Mapping this typology on a compass should help us determine what side we err on, but I think we attempt this by placing doctrine as the ideal, because this is the paradigm by which we understand truth.

The biggest reason why this compass isn't helpful is because it doesn't help us understand where Republicans are in the reality paradigm, as much as it helps you understand where realities are in relation to the Republican. This is the definition of 'relative truth', and this is what defines denominations. I believe that recognizing this flaw is central to understanding the diversity that is Christianity.

When a deviation from a common rule is found to be true, we call this an Anomaly. Enough of these can throw our paradigm into a state of crisis, which in turn produces a Paradigm shift. In a Christian context, this is known as a denominational divide. But the reasons that divide us are bigger than doctrine alone. For instance, the Great Schism was a political and cultural issue; it had nothing to do with faith or practice. Alternatively, the Reformation was a doctrinal divide, but it could only gain legs because of the recent common language translation of the Bible. This puts culture into perspective for us; ie., the society that influences how we appropriate truth is varied.

Paradigm shifts should not be associated with a theory of relativism. The idea is not that truth is changing, but that further study is changing our understanding of truth.- Donald Miller, When Truth is the Enemy of Truth

Further study of truth changes our understanding of truth. That is, truth is not relative to a greater experience, so much as experiences are relative to a greater truth.

Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain.- Richard Dawkins

Our existential compass has the way of attaining the meaning of life or "The Way of True Life" as the centrist's ideal when we are trying to find purpose beyond ourselves, or such an elusive character as God. We find purpose on a spiritual level and on a cultural level, and express meaning by living liberally or confiding in security. To hold this in perfect balance would mean to have a significant understanding of how our universe works, and how we can partner with, and perpetuate it further. So I think that by studying where cultural and spiritual securities and liberties intersect, we can map which experiences are less healthy and which are more beneficial to discovering meaning. In theory, more anomalies within the central sphere should reflect thought that holistically brings us closer to understanding the universal meaning of life.

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me."
John 14:6

There is a vast difference in opinion/experience within the Christian faith, and I believe it is the result of being closer to the greatest complexity that the world is trying to understand.


If the compass could be used for securities and liberties being measured spiritually and culturally, with "The Way of True Life" being the ideal, this is what I think it would look like:

"The Existential Compass"

The way I would interpret this is that the 'Way of True Life ideal' incorporates all of spiritual and cultural liberty and security to the fullest. I've placed some things on the compass, do you agree with my interpretation? Would you change the axis?

The questions I ask myself to determine how I place thought on these axes:

• What is the spiritual posture toward cultural engagement?
• What is the cultural posture toward spiritual engagement?
• Are you seeking to engage in culture or spirituality?
• Do you seek to be influential in secular or religious circles?
• Do you achieve this in a primarily passive or aggressive tone?
• What are your extremes or preferences?

Learning Christianese

* I must confess, I began this post as a rant of sorts, but I've restructured it to be more helpful to conversation.

Defining Christianese
Christianese is an in-group jargon used most notably by members of “low” Church denominations—usually Charismatics and Evangelicals. David Martin defines this discourse as “a lens for concentrating a particular angle of vision” (9). Like any in-group language, Christianese developed out of prolonged contact between people who subscribed to similar beliefs. It is characterized by the common usage of certain words, theological terms, and catchphrases. These words and phrases are usually found in standard English but with different meanings; without an understanding of the Bible or evangelical culture, the listener has no context to understand what is being said. For example, a Christianese phrase like, “set me on fire” is a request for God to renew religious passion. However, without an understanding of common Christian metaphor which equates God’s power with fire, this statement could seem like a suicidal request.

You may have heard or seen some Christian slogans in your lifetime.............. They are often created as jpeg images, T-shirts, billboards, or bumper stickers. A common trend has been to alter popular logos and trademarks by changing the wording to reflect a cryptic message referencing God, grace, and the like. Capitalizing on the successes of large corporations—often at the risk of federal trademark infringement, can seem rather dangerous for a small organization such as a church, IMO.

To be fair, Christians aren't the only ones doing this. It's an easy way for small businesses or activist groups to gain attention as well. But Christian culture rips off anything; even if the reference isn't clear or relevant. Paired with using Christianese, it's become an inside joke, really. These become the T-shirts that stay in our closets, only to come out for a church gathering.

Christian slogans are designed objectively to implement the 'Great Reversal' of Jesus—that is, the reconciliation of secular culture. We are infatuated with the way Jesus communicates: the surprising morals of his stories, his unconventional healing ministry, his quick wit when chastising hypocrites. But the difference between hijacking trademarks and the message Jesus' intended is simple: we cannot expect anyone to find truth in a counterfeit.

Counterfeits are imitations of superior value. It's not difficult to see how this method of evangelism is confusing for people. Infringements aside, anything that causes people to question the integrity of the product you're pushing is a sin, regardless of a clever acronym. This transcends the lousy T-shirt; it has ineffectually created an entire culture of apathy.

South Park, S07 E09

The way Christians have infiltrated the music industry has been nothing short of embarrassing. Christianese lyrics carry double meaning or no meaning for most listeners, while maintaining an uncomfortably positive vibe throughout. On iTunes it dominates the Inspirational genre, while blurring the line of what it means to be inspirational. This is clear because of the negative way many talent-privy listeners (Christian and non-Christian) have reacted. When Christian music labels arent infamously employing musicians to play Top 40's cover songs, they're making worship music. This serves a purpose, I concede, but I'm criticizing the tendency to produce songs that celebrate an ideological standard versus honest reality.

The Christian film industry would be the same way, save for its non-existence. Films are expensive to make, so the most prevalent content that any Christian film companies produce is Sunday School curriculum and infomercials. Any feature films that do get produced are revolving around an exasperly overt 'rebirth' plot, thus preaching to the choir, as it were—and include homework. This is just more Sunday School curriculum.

Putting ourselves through self-inflicted persecution that has nothing to do with Jesus' message of grace is a dangerous mistake, which I believe should be taken very seriously.

The goal in multimedia creation should be nothing more than to simply start a dialogue with people who notice. This is done by connecting with them on a level of familiarity, yet subtly (or unsubtly) presenting an ideology to a potential spiritual seeker. Sociologically, it's possibly the most effective way of evangelism, but sadly, it's been poorly executed. Who is your target audience? Will only church-goers understand the obscure Jesus-connection and cultural references? The question is, how do we accomplish this goal without looking like turds?

Knowing you are good at something requires precisely the same skills you need to be good at it, so people who are horrible at something tend to have no idea they are horrible at all.
- John Cleese

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is a cross-cultural study that tends to focus on American subjects. It concludes that many of them, at least sometimes and under some conditions, have a tendency to inflate their worth.

Why is this important? Most Christian propaganda, paraphernalia and multimedia is produced in America, for starters. Secondly, the companies creating this content are structured so that their strategic focus is largely dictated by non-creatives (John Cleese also talks about this). Thirdly, scripture is misappropriated to reason away communication error.
E.g., this string of arguments:

For I am the Lord, I do not change.
- Malachi 3:6

And 

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
- Hebrews 13:8

Therefore, 

"When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself." - Jesus
- John 12:32

So we don't need to worry, because, 

We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
- Romans 8:28

Christians can use scripture to excuse their efforts in partnering with God to produce good work. Incidentally, the number of Christians in church communities who possess creative abilities but are disengaged is astronomical. The 'Church collective' is a resource for this very purpose.

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men
- Colossians 3:23

With regards to creating meaningful content, I think it is important to recognize the value of communication science. The human mind connects messages on a subliminal level that, if used properly, can communicate positive undertones combined with core values, etc. Of course, this can be manipulated. However, by not paying attention to these subliminal connection being made, you are more than likely sending a confusing, or worse, conflicting message. After all, living in the Information Age, we are doing Christ a disservice by not communicating to the highest level of our ability. Looking at early Christianity, it was evident that communication methodology was carefully considered when sharing the simplest of truths. I think we can especially draw from the parabolic method of Jesus.

E.g.
Foot Washing (leading by serving)
Workers in the Vineyard (unfair wages)
The Widow's Offering (giving what you don't have)
The Good Samaritan (loving people who hate you)

The list goes on.

Jesus was a revolutionary communicator, who used palatable concepts and universal language. Everything He said challenged the way we live our lives, and did nothing short of flip our world upside down to help us understand how backwards his message was. Above many things, I think what we can take from this as storytellers, artists and designers is one guiding principle: Your theme cannot be more important than how you communicate it. Whether that's a story, a song, or a bumper sticker, if you do not allow yourself time to be creative, and your screening process does not involve test subject criticism, you may not be the right person for the job, and you will never realize that.

I Got Served

sorry, i couldn't resist.

i am sorry for such a delayed post, perhaps some of you have given up on this blog because i don't update it enough. i've been busy living life, i guess. i've experienced quite a lot in the past few months. i've been seeking God, and evaluating motives. one thing i'm struggling with is pride. it seems that when i am delighted in the work of the Lord, the enemy is dedicated to boosting shots to my ego. i start getting wise in the ways of man. i use persuasive words. i lose my innocense to the facade of 'being real'...

yes, i know, you're wondering how being real could be a facade. believe me, it was news to me as well. it seems that honesty has become this upcoming generation's preference to holiness. while both are pure and good, they can also be taken to an ultimate extreme. i have been a sucker for this. my desire to live hardcore. "because you're not hardcore, unless you live hardcore." but if that's all talk, how am i a follower of Christ? it seems i've found a new comfort zone that tells me i can get away with only talking like i know God, talking like i've experienced God, thinking about God, even telling others about God.

God has been revealing to me (because i'm so dense) that i can't be Christlike unless i feed the hungry. heal the sick. give to the needy. serve others.

i never give money to homeless people. heck, when they ask if i have any change, i outright lie to them. i don't even look them in the eye.

someone asked me for a quarter once. i gave him one. i started to feel good about myself, giving myself a little pat on the back, and a little Jesus star beside my name. i was downtown Hamilton. then i needed to make a phonecall. i realized that i had given this guy my only quarter - my ticket home. thoughts overwhelmed my mind. i got bitter. i cussed, i swore, i punched the payphone. i resentfully bought a $20 phone card. one i would never use more than once. this little punk inconvenienced me, and ruined my day with one simple request. i didn't have to say yes. i told myself that was the last time i would give away cash. it was also the first time.

i read a passage of scripture that has Jesus saying,

"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
if a man asks you for money, give him money. look him in the eye, and acknowledge him as a person. servanthood is not a gifting, or a calling. it applies to anyone who is in Christ.

i have to admit, this is a hard message. i will have to struggle to live up to it. everything within me burns to want to be Christlike but avoid my responsibility to serve others.

My Embrace

i can't stand this. i feel like my life is on repeat. i keep asking the same questions over and over, trying to come to different conclusions... for the sole purpose of changing my mind again, and again. like repainting a canvas with all that old paint underneath. somehow it still shows through. not really sure what i'm trying to describe here, just my display of raw emotion. i am contending with apathy now. i want God to take everything away from me. beauty, pride, joy... take things that are dear to me. so i can relearn what it means to be thankful.

i try to represent Christ. but all that comes across is my self-consciousness. guarding my heart. analyzing myself. second-guessing my actions. analyzing myself again. it gives me a headache. advice says, "just be yourself." it proves rather frustrating when it's your self that you're trying to kill. kill this self-righteousness and pity. take away my better judgment so that i may learn to forgive and forget. kill my senses. let me become numb to the pain of reformation.

reason will only validate a need. my reason is Christ. i need morality. i need unconditional love. i need something to live for. i need acceptance. i need forgiveness. i need progression.

random thought: there are plenty of fish in the sea. but my lure is caught in the weeds of an irrigation pond.

i signed up to be on the worship team at church today. i don't know what this means for me. it's something i used to help my mom with. maybe i want to induce more discipline in my life. more restrictions. more commitments.

this oddity of joy proves rather amusing. need i say, my last sentence is redundant. i get stuck at a traffic light, and burst out laughing. excuse my pizzahut-lingo, but when there's 40 bills up and the make table is a sea of chaos, i am ecstatic. technical mistakes in music stimulate passion.

"when the Spirit meets the flesh, it is a beautiful collision" - David Crowder.

one thing i've been thinking a lot about lately is this metaphysical sensation: conjoining of the senses. for example, tasting red. seeing heat. hearing pain. when we worship, we have this interaction with God's Spirit. and it is coupled with overwhelming passion.

i have this burning desire to be able to read a book while i sing to music. being one-track minded, this is virtually impossible for me. i can't split my attention to share two sources of information exchange. it's like breathing in through your mouth, and out your nose simultaneously. they cancel eachother out, and you stop breathing. your lungs do not function, so the oxygen transfer is pointless.

now that you're experimenting with your nose and mouth, allow me to continue...

why do we worship? to glorify God. to interact with the Spirit. right. i don't want to poison your mind with my next comparison, so this is a forewarning: don't read too much into this.

God gave us marriage, to exemplify how we are to interact with Him. a relationship that is consummated by venerating eachother, showing the highest execution of love known to man. this may seem rather misplaced and awkward, when in conjunction with my last post displaying God as a father-figure. but our understanding of God is that He desires to be the ultimate satisfaction to every need. He is our be-all and end-all. He is our everything.

this upsets a lot of christians, because they don't want Jesus to be their boyfriend. they suggest that this image of God is too intimate, and that God is to be revered above all else. i'm not disqualifying that Christ wants to be revered, but the marriage scenario doesn't undermine this. at least, in a Biblical sense.

"In one blinding moment of salvific truth, Christianity became no longer merely a moral code, an ethic, or a philosophy of life, but a love affair." - Brennan Manning: Above All

i am thoroughly convinced that God desires an intimate relationship with us. and when we limit ourselves to lip-service, a good deed now and then, and a warm pew, we're missing out. surely, all that we can ever achieve is merely inadequate. but God is still exuberantly pleased. much like the delight a father has in a child's finger-painting, God not only knows our limitations, He embraces them.

Humility: An Observation

Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama 

hum·ble (hũm'bel)

adj. hum·bler, hum·blest

1. Marked by meekness or modesty in behavior, attitude, or spirit; not arrogant or prideful.

2. Showing deferential or submissive respect: a humble apology.

3. Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly: a humble cottage.

tr.v. hum·bled, hum·bling, hum·bles

1. To curtail or destroy the pride of; humiliate.

2. To cause to be meek or modest in spirit.

3. To give a lower condition or station to; abase. See Synonyms at degrade.

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin humilis, low, lowly, from humus, ground; see dhghem- in Indo-European roots.]

over the past few months, i've been struggling with the true meaning of humility. what does it mean to be humble? what is the opposite of arrogance and pride? in my attempt to imitate a form of humility, i am afraid that i have only redefined it. my version of humility looked more like self-pity. or denial of my ability. and in doing this, i felt fake. and that was frustrating. because it seemed that no matter what i do, i appear to be prideful. even in stating that, i somehow take pride in acknowledging that i'm proud. and then feel a need to explain myself. figure that one out.

recently, Barbera Walters did a documentary called, "Heaven: Where Is It? How Do We Get There?" where she conversed with numerous leaders of various faiths. one being His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. i observed this man and the position he took when asked, "the Tibetans claim that you are a god. is this true? are you enlightened?" his response, "no! i am not enlightened. i do not know what will happen tonight, or tomorrow, i can barely remember what happened yesterday. my eyes have bad vision. if i was a god, would i need glasses? ...i am just a teacher."

okay, there is an obvious christian response to this interview. but for the moment, i want to skip that. because what i find to be so attractive about this man's character is his denial of his given title. is this humility? is humility really just acknowledging that your reputable identity is a lie? this is upsetting to me. because to mimick his realization would mean denial of my identity, which is found in Christ. and with that being the foundation of my faith, i know this to be absolutely true: i have been born again. can i have pride in truth? the truth is that my self-inflicted shortcoming is worthless. yet Jesus' death on the cross has saved my from my sin.

i suppose the scriptural summation of this would be (Galations 6:14) "May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

as well as Paul's vision in 2 Corinthians 12:1-10.

Turkish Delight

Turkish Delight

how to i bring myself to test God's abounding grace? o, how i detest this rotting carcass of a body i have been given. how do i live in a lended shell, only to continually betray my brethren for turkish delight? so foul. so disgraceful. in the end my tongue is sweet, my hands sticky. traces of my crime lie everywhere i touch. who committed this crime? the one with sticky hands. how will you judge me? will you accept me. what are the conditions? if i continue to indulge my fat body with sweets. surely not. if i promise to turn from my wicked ways, perhaps. yet the smell awakens me. it heightens my senses. i am dumbfound. i must have this. so delectable. hinder me, o God. wake me up from this dream.

provide an exit from this plague of mirages in my desert. i am thirsty. i know what i want, i know the satisfaction of my cravings. Your water that never runs dry. but your springs are found deep. and i am too tired to dig. Lord give me strength. save me from myself. why do i not pray this when my eyes are fixated on this dream of lush. the greenery so intense. so inviting. this tree of knowledge. its fruit, hypnotic. o God, why do i never pray for a shovel in these times. i long for a drink, yet lack energy and motivation to turn my eye from this delusional counterfeit. why am i afraid to call it what it is?

i pose for a picture. a backdrop behind me. yet i give no thought to what page-turners of my future photo album will see. i can make up my reality. deception. is it nothing more? tear down the backdrop to reveal the crack in the white washed wall behind me. take off the filter to reveal the stale, green halogens illuminating from overhead. this is where i am. nothing appealing here. better yet, wait until my smile wears off. reveal my inner beauty of inattentiveness. o God, restore my inner joy. let my peace be found in You.

Christian culture eludes true emotion, unfortunately. shouldn't we all walk a fine line?

i believe there are a lot of christians who don't know what direction they are headed. so intimidated by the ones who do.

In the Next Room

lately i've been discouraged. not a very nice way of starting a new year, but sometimes i want to stare out the back window of a car, and watch the road disappear behind me... listen to a cd and single out the invisible voice of a backup vocalist and recognize the beauty of harmony... try every scenario of a puzzle, avoiding the solution merely to discover every possible way to come to the wrong answer... i want to roll down a hill, but it's winter... i'm eager to say i've lived life, but i have not lived it yet... i want to have children, but but the math requires a piece of chalk and a chalkboard... if only life were that simple. why are God's ways not our ways? why does He require of us what does not come naturally?

why do i care to not smell like a perspiring human? what makes profanity offensive? why must i mourn the death of a loved one?

sometimes my best medicine is my dog. she loves her walks, and getting fed at 6:00. for my dog, life is simple. she would not recognize my deep, inner turmoil, or the complexity of my life, but she recognizes my face when i walk in the door. she knows the smell on my pant leg if i've been around another dog. she instinctively knows when dinner time is. how do i love such an ignorant, selfish animal? morally, my dog is corrupt. she is not considerate, empathetic, hospitable, or virtuous in any way.

i continually come into contact with people who want answers to questions. they want advice. they want to be told what to do. they want someone to understand them.

My dog, Annie

if i told my dog that the bag where her food is kept lies in the next room, gave her a leash and a scoop to take with her on her walks, showed her where her dog shampoo is, and then left for a 2 month vacation, i would come home to a dead dog. my dog has not developed opposable thumbs to open the door to her food, or developed a sense of human tolerance to walk herself without coming into contact with other dogs and violating someone's property rights, or able to determine when she smells too much like a dog and needs a bath. i would then be faced with animal cruelty charges.

often i feel like the answers i give to people's questions are unsatisfying. the advice i give is irrelevant. i fail to empathise with them. i feel like a dog who knows where the food is, but i can't open the door.

i fear a new movement in christianity is on the rise: relevance without godliness. christians trying to relate to everyone's problems, but failing to give God's divinity justice. agreeing that christians have bad taste in music. that we look foolish when we worship. that striving for holiness looks like arrogance. if we see someone confused about direction for their life, we tell them to pray more. if we meet someone with an addiction, we tell them to quit. if we find someone struggling financially, we tell them to tithe.

christians have a habit of saying uncool things. ever have a conversation with someone, and bring up God, and watch them as they get this glazed look over their eyes? i get discouraged. immediately what comes to mind is that they've heard it before. they've tried it and it doesn't work. it's like i can see where they're coming from, build up to a climax where i'm going to offer some deep, philosophical solution, and i bring up God. a beautiful letdown.

i think we need to re-establish what godliness means. godliness means humility. what does it look like? is it something that is desirable? 2 Peter 1:3-8 talks about making one's calling and election sure. adding to your faith. a systematic breakdown on how to become an effective, productive christian. it is some of the best advice i have received. we talk about christianity like it's a breeze through life on a white, puffy cloud, without a care in the world. we tell people about the hole in their heart that is immediately filled with the acceptance of Christ. yet we see 80% of born-again believers fall away from God. we see children raised in christian homes going off to college and leaving church behind. do we keep these statistics in the dark? are we embarrassed by what the records show? somehow Christ's "unfailing love" has failed a lot of people. either that, or they never found it in the first place. i tend to believe the latter.

sadly, people have heard where the kibble lies. they've even heard about the master who opens the door. how do they get His attention?

Heavenly Ham

tonight i attended my grandparents' annual Christmas party. i was asked to say the blessing for dinner too. we had ham, scallop potatoes, cabbage salad, jello, peas, and lasagna.

anyways, so i had to pray. and ask God to bless our meal. let me tell you, i wanted to scream. why, you may ask? because i was remembering something scriptural about eating unclean animals, and that it was an abomination to God. so i checked this. Deuteronomy 14:3-20. i was about to ask God to bless an unclean animal, which He has already cursed. this was scary for me. because i did not know the rules for such things, or if it was strictly Old Testament, or if it only applied to Jews, or what.

i was beside myself, deafening my ears to my own prayer. i just thanked God for a bunch of stuff, family, Christmas, freedom, what-have-you. then it came. "thank you for this meal." i shook my head in my thoughts. i was disgusted. mind you, i was well aware that i cooked up some mean bacon last night, and enjoyed it thoroughly. i love bacon. i love ham. i'm canadian. leave me alone... with my bacon.

so maybe i was being a little over-dramatic. i mean, it's christmas. we eat what we're given. plus, there are much more important things than what you eat, right? so i came home and checked this. here you go, a little Acts 10:9-23 for you to look at.

there you have it, folks. all meat, clean or unclean, hooved or not hooved, delectable or revolting, bacon or ham. all good. it's all good. our God is evidently sane. as well as omniscient. worthy of praise, because He knows how good bacon really is. so thank Him.

oh, and for those contradiction conspirators, this is simply one of the many changes to the law instated by Jesus. Orthodox Jews do not eat meat, because they still abide by the old law and the Torah. why? because they are taught that the new testament is hate-literature. they do not believe Jesus to be anything more than a con. they're still waiting for their messiah. the Son of Man. sadly, they have missed it. because they cannot accept that He would have a problem with their legalistic tradition. that He would heal a blind man on a Sunday. or that He would fill their holy water vessels with wine. or that He would be born in a cow trough in Bethlehem, or crucified naked on a cross with a crown of thorns.

oh, and by the way, Merry Christmas... or Happy Holidays... or Season's Greetings... honestly, who cares if the government decides to call it "holiday season"? i mean, Dec. 25 was originally a pagan holiday of feasts, celebrating winter solstice. most scholars think Jesus was born around the end of September. but, with commercialized st. nicholas, and popular western culture, i don't see a dire need to make a change. as for me and my house, Jesus is the reason for the season. if He's not anyone else's reason, so be it. it's not a religious statute. evidently, it's not like God will smite you or anything. unless you're Jewish.

80 Percent Club

how do you convict, but not condemn?
how do you call sin sin, but show grace and forgiveness?
how do you be stern, but also compassionate?
how do you say no in love?
how do you disagree, but listen to an idea?

should everything require a compromise? a truce? a change in thinking?
would you admit you are wrong? should you?

when does an argument end? what if you never argue? do you have an opinion worth defending?

would you die for what you believe? would you die for anything? should you have to?

are there questions worth asking? are there questions not worth answering?

am i entitled to an opinion? what does that mean? are you entitled to my opinion?

what is truth? can i speak absolute truth? is my truth different than your truth? can truth contradict itself? is truth a relative term?


80% of questions are statements in disguise.

Damaging Effects of Direct Sunlight

our culture has allowed us to embrace the comfort of the world which we are presented with. we are sheltered by what mass media deems important and worthy of our attention. it, in turn, dictates our world-view and ignorance of the bigger picture. it is our tinted pair of sunglasses, transforming reflections of the sun into a more tolerable, soothing picture. not revealing the intense; painful; and, in prolonged exposure, damaging effects of direct sunlight.

we have become vulnerable. accustomed to the shade that our 'sunglasses' provide for us. even in our spiritual lives. we tackle the decoys that the devil has set for us: saving gospel music; the constitution of marriage; prayer in school; pro-life activism; religious holidays... the list goes on and on.

the Church holds on so dearly to these things. these social issues. they proclaim our pride to this great nation. all that we will stand for.

but our war is not that against flesh and blood. but in the intense; painful; and, in prolonged exposure, damaging effects of spiritual warfare (damaging to your complacency in your faith)

perhaps it is our freedom of speech that has been our biggest hinderance of all in this battle. meaning, the ability to fight for these 'rights'. i mean, by making all of our country's laws align with our biblical philosophy, will we see a country turn to God? i hope not. i would hate to attend a church that is programmed by government dictatorship.

i do not think this country will experience full-fledged revival until our freedoms have been stripped away from us. until the church is an underground movement. let them bulldoze our church buildings. let them persecute us for our world-view. let christianity become a rebellion again. then and only then will you see a true hunger. a true passion.

i'm not suggesting that we light matches to our church buildings. thank God for the freedom to build a place for gathering of christians. but i think we are afraid of the inevitable: north america as a third-world country. it is actually harder to live your faith in this westernized culture than anywhere else in the world. because our battle is not against oppression, it is against legalism. our battle is not against the social issues of our north american culture, but against the root of the problem: their world-view... largely, evolutionism. give a people no meaning for life, and you get a life with no meaning. no absolute truths. no values. no conscience. try and explain to them that the purpose for church is to make the world a better place to live... it's doomed to fail. because Jesus did not come to take over the world, but to save us from it!

let that be our mission also: to save people from the never-ending punshment for the wickedness of this world.