I Beseech You Therefore Bretheren

This morning I listened to a sermon from a pretty large church that had invited a guest speaker to deliver the Sunday sermon. Overall I think he did a fantastic job and I believe that his intentions were met and the audience, definitely including myself, experienced the message that the Father wanted us to hear. In the beginning of his homily he touched on a practice that, in previous generations, was a go-to practice for Christians wanting to exercise their "evangelism muscles" without too much risk. He told a cute story of going on vacation with his wife and taking an afternoon to walk out to the beach and hand out tracts.

I have handed out one tract in my life - I was in third grade and my Sunday School class encouraged us to give it to someone. I had become friends with a fifth grader who rode the same bus and could think of no one better to be the recipient of my good-will. From what I can remember, my relationship with that guy ended on that day. I don't remember details - but I remember that he was very, very reluctant to take it - but I kept asking him to, knowing that on Sunday I would be asked who I had given it to - and I wanted to be able to give a good answer.

*****

I see the whole concept of a "Gospel Tract" as being locked in the generations of my parents and grandparents. A generation sold out to the idea of evangelism, dedications, and "salvations". Having spoken with many such folk - I truly believe that their hearts are fantastic. But for the past few years, and even more recently as I'm reading books like "Lived Theology," I'm starting to believe that we have painted the picture all wrong.

When Christ began his ministry - he didn't just call his listeners to believe that he was their savior - he spoke some provocative and costly things. He called his listeners to accept suffering, to lay their lives down for the sake of others, and to bring the Kingdom of Heaven into their daily surroundings. No wonder our culture is reflecting despair more than anything else right now - when you strip out the difficulty, the pain, the sacrifice of following Christ - when you remove the call to change the world - you remove the power and leave only a shell.

Romans 12v1f calls us to present ourselves as living sacrifices - - too often we read eschatology into this passage. The setting of this sacrifice isn't eternity - it is today. I'm just starting to ask what this means, what this looks like - and I beseech you to join me. I am sure that the good and acceptable and perfect will of God includes getting a little dirty and requires more than handing someone a sheet of paper with some "right thinking" printed on it.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

A Look at "Jihad"

Actions may speak louder than words - but in a day when most people spend more time on their phones than actually living - words carry great weight, and great power.

Jihad is a powerful word. For me it elicits thoughts of burning buildings, funerals, and anger - a lot of anger. I think of guys who are misguided - hurting people for the hopes of some far-off religious paradise. These thoughts are shaped not by anyone whose home culture uses the term, not by anyone who has invoked the word for themselves - but by news sources and pastors who are trying to make sense of why tragedies like terrorist attacks happen. And this is perfectly legitimate - but that doesn't make it true.

In my typical, recent quest for honesty in the words I use and pre-conceived notions that I maintain - I began to look into whether I have been doing a disservice to the true originators and owners of "Jihad". What I found would have been more shocking if our entire culture didn't only support sources that reinforced their pre-accepted biases.

As it turns out, jihad almost exclusively refers to an internal "holy war" - the spiritual battle that each of us wage on a daily basis. Mohammed himself reiterates this when, on returning from a physically militant battle he says, "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," referring to the struggle for self discipline and internal peace. The Islamic Supreme Council provides further details as to what qualifies as acceptable physical violence (militant jihad) and what doesn't. I strongly encourage you to follow the link and check it out before continuing.

There are an estimated 1.8 billion (That's 1,800,000,000) Muslims in the world based on a Pew Research survey that was updated in May of 2017. To help paint a picture of how they view extremism, 86% say that violence in the name of Islam is rarely or never justified; 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and just 1% say that suicide bombings are often justified. Even with these numbers strongly supporting the idea that most Muslims abhor violence in the name of their religion - they may seem somewhat high (14% say violence in the name of Islam is often justified = 252 million people). But lets keep honest in mind and ask - how many Christians around the world (or even just in the USA for that matter) would argue that violence in the name of Christianity is okay?

Names like the Aryan Republican Army (Associated with a Nordicist interpretation of Christianity), the (graphic images warning if following the link) Army of God (focusing on anti-abortion violence), the Phineas Priesthood (Remember Numbers 25v7?), "the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord," and the Aryan Nations come to mind. Hopefully you didn't do too much research on these groups because it is disgusting that such beliefs exist - and in the name of Christianity nevertheless.

I know no one who would agree with any of the groups listed above. But how many Christians would say that there are circumstances in which violence in the name of Christianity is sometimes justified? I'm legitimately asking - because I'm not sure. I would think at least 14% - but I would very much like to hear your thoughts. Again - the pursuit is truth, and if this whole post is off-base - I want to hear what logic and what sources you use to determine it to be so. 

I'm certainly not arguing that Islam isn't responsible for the recent atrocities that are becoming more frequent. What I am saying is that these acts done in the name of jihad are condemned by the vast majority of those claiming Islam, most importantly by the religious leaders. This rebuke of perverted theopraxis isn't just a media ploy to subvert public opinion; it is supported logically and by their hermeneutic study of their religious texts. Typically this is where readers will "write-off" this post as being liberal, terrorist-sympathizing nonsense - but I'm hoping that if you have read the past few posts, you will be able to step outside of what's comfortable and be able to take an honest look at all sides of the argument - which is the only way we can hold opinions that have stood the test of critical thought and honesty.

If we hold before us the times where people have performed atrocities in the name of Christianity - perhaps we would more easily be able to extend grace to the whole Islamic religion - realizing that only a minute fraction are distorting the beliefs of the religion. We must link arms together to fight against extremism from all sides - and the only way to do this begins by opposing the narrative that Islam is a religion of terrorism - just as we strongly oppose anyone who would attempt to argue that Christianity is a religion of terrorists.

In the spirit of Jihad - join me in fighting for the self-discipline of rational thought and discussion based on truth and research. Help me to arrive there by enlightening facets of the conversation that I have missed.

Thoughts are encouraged in the comment section! Also - Plus 1 this post - I don't really know what that means, but it seems like a good idea. 

When to Withdraw Respect: a Look at Honest Debating

I've been looking for ways to disagree with people, without seeming dismissive or demeaning. For whatever reason I often see things differently from others which often is quite tiring. For a long time I viewed it as my responsibility to make sure that my "true" opinion was being supplied into the conversation - almost as though I would be doing a disservice to truth if I kept my mouth shut. More times than not, this just led to further arguments and a greater divide.

Originally my biggest concern was with the whole "everyone deserves respect" thing - which made me question whether suggesting someone may be wrong could be done while still respecting them. This obviously led me to separating the person from their ideas - - something that is so rarely maintained publicly. Because we have become so attached to our ideas - when someone disagrees with them, they are disagreeing with us - and therefore attacking us. This isn't just a philosophical conclusion - if you watch people (me included) you can see physical reactions to their ideas being confronted and challenged. Speech quickens, hands fidget, logic blurs.

The thing is - if we are going to honestly pursue truth - we have to foster an environment where it is okay to have wrong ideas - as long as when they are proven as such - we unhitch ourselves from them and pursue truth. Since we are often emotionally tied to our ideas, to the point where they often become part of our self-identity - accepting that the idea is invalid is quite difficult. Few of us have probably never "lost" an argument - - which is a testament to how ineffective our modern approach to dialogue is. Our culture draws thick lines around what we believe. Whenever one of these lines is proven to have been drawn outside of reality - we shame that person - causing them to thicken the line, rather than erase and redraw. This further broadens the divide between individuals - and between our society as a whole.

We no longer have much of a "group identity" - and that's a shame. Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone just hop on board to everything that I think is true (that would probably be tragic) - - but what I am suggesting is that we seek for a group identity founded on the honest pursuit of truth, rather than the pursuit to convince the world that we are right.

The problem is that most of us at this point are probably thinking that we already do this - but we don't, I don't. When someone brings evidence against my position I either dismiss it immediately or challenge the source - I never accept it straight away. These two reactions are opposites regarding the pursuit of truth. Because of the dishonest and logically incoherent approach of so many "news" sources and studies  - to honestly pursue truth we must question and challenge the validity of all sources - both those which support us and those which prove us wrong.

I would love to be part of a society that would collectively pursue truth even when the result is the requirement to reevaluate and update our own views. I am a strong supporter of honoring all people. As human beings created in the image of God, we are inherently deserving of honor. I don't believe that respect is inherent. Respect must be earned and can easily be lost (please take a second to review the definition of "respect" if this sounds weird). We must be willing to withdraw respect from those who stand behind positions not founded on fact and truth. If someone is willing to relentlessly hold to positions and ideas that are not able to be supported with truth and that stand in the face of critical thinking and reasoning - we must still honor the person while simultaneously withdrawing respect for them. Be mindful - this is different from disrespecting them, because disrespect is devoid of honor.

So honor - don't respect - but don't disrespect. Fight for truth - fight against dishonest, illogical and unfounded positions.

An Experiment in Critical Thinking - Anybody Interested?

I am frustrated by how difficult finding truth is. Every position has articles supporting and studies against. In the world set with such readily available yet most often disprovable documentation - arriving at universally believable "truth" is almost inconceivable.

I remember growing up with "facts" and "history" that were what they were. Today - we exist in an age of skepticism largely attributed to the uncovering of revisionist history propagated by generations previous. I wonder if any points exist of which we can agree? Was 9/11 an inside job? Of course sane people will glibly reject such a preposterous idea (I do). But in the light of the Bay of Pigs and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, are we afforded the luxury of immediate dismissal anymore?

I know that we won't ever get to a place where we all agree - but I do hope for a time when I can feel confident. The United States used to pride itself for having a populace equipped to think critically - honestly, this is laughable now. If only we could all agree to disregard obviously biased and reprehensibly naive "news sources" - but that won't happen - - - even if it did we would never agree which ones would need to be disregarded.

I appeal to those who are willing to step outside of the reactive, sensational, blind adherence to what your implicit biases demand of you. Whether you hate Obama or love him. Whether you are a lifelong Democrat or a Donald Trump Train-er. I request that you join me in rejecting natural tendencies to blindly support. Every position, ever historical event, every preacher and politician - It's time to critically evaluate and dialogue (kindly) - appealing only to verifiable sources and logical arguments - in order to create a coalition of modern thinkers who can help the lazy and hoodwinked.

There are many (most) things of which I don't know how I feel or what I support. I hope to find others who are in the same boat - and then to listen to others who have honestly arrived at conclusions and who can help direct to reality. If your argument doesn't hold up to fact and logic - that specific argument will be disregarded - but you will be no less listened to on the next point. Arguments themselves are on trial - not the voices presenting them.

Comments appreciated. Details to follow.

Grace and peace.

The Illusion of Truth

Katherine passed along to me an article yesterday where the author walked her audience through her own enlightenment regarding how she views God. Most of it was centered around her realization that a lot of words she heard/used and concepts that inherently exist in Christian circles either have no meaning anymore - or the meaning is so twisted that the reality of the statements are lost.

This led me to apply the same thoughts to concepts, words and people that I encounter on a daily basis. If you read my post yesterday you probably got the understanding that I am currently in the process of developing my thoughts on a lot of issues. Sometimes in an attempt to test new (to me) concepts, I will post on Twitter or Facebook to see how these ideas are received and handled. This series of experiments has been baffling.

I have consistently found that people generally brand themselves with a series of a dozen or so phrases/ideas and ruthlessly defend those positions - regardless of whether the things they are defending don't really mean what they think they mean - or if the meaning has shifted over time, distorting it from the original concept to which they held.

In an attempt to be ever self-evaluating and self-critiquing, I find these encounters painful. And it isn't limited to one facet of life. Rather than produce examples - I implore you to join me in self-evaluation. Be willing to accept that some words no longer represent the ideas you originally found so attractive. Be willing to realize that some of your personal heros have dropped the ball and now require a caveat before praising them.

If we are truly pursuing a society that speaks honestly and debates intelligently - we must throw off the comfortable laziness of static thought.

Grace and peace.

An Appeal to Thought

Most of the people who I follow on social media are very opinionated. They know what they think is best and they are willing to argue with anyone who disagrees. Most of us hold our opinions tightly and view any holes or gaps with great worry - doing whatever we can to hide and suppress them from the public. I'm beginning to believe that the root cause for much of the hate, anger and disagreement in our society today is due to our unwillingness to consider that we may be wrong.

Over the past few years I have considered an array of opinions. Growing up in a traditional southern Republican household, I naturally began by considering the ideas of those on the far left. I was very interested in Bernie Sanders, universal health care, socialism - even Hillary Clinton for a minute. But I didn't stop when I first heard an argument that sounded good. I began seeking out opposing viewpoints. And I found them.

As I continued to read and listen - I continued to find individuals who were glad to explain what they thought (knew) was best and why. What I didn't find was people who were willing to discuss in much detail alternative opinions. Any suggestion becomes an attack which is met with strong defense. I don't like that.

I'm not saying that we should all loosely hold ideals and be tossed to and fro by the winds and seas - but I am requesting that all of us be willing to dialogue - and to do so genuinely. As long as we paint those on "the other side of the isle" as radicals we will continue to see a deepening divide in our country. You can think that my ideas are ridiculous and even tell me so - as long as you can explain why - and be willing to step into these shoes for a few minutes - and I promise to do the same.

Why I Left Politics-as-Usual

Why I left Politics-as-Usual

By Cameron Ventura

                The day that Gov. John Kasich withdrew his active campaign for the President of the United States, my whole idea of politics faced a whirlpool of questioning and criticism. I was forced to accept that there wouldn’t be a Republican or a Democrat candidate who stood for small government, fiscal responsibility, liberty, and positive immigration reform. Essentially – I wouldn’t find a candidate who aligned even remotely with my idea of good government. That is when my perspective of what was ideal in a candidate and in a party began to transition.

                As we are now in arguably the most polarized social state since the Vietnam War, the idea of any true majority backing the same platform is less and less likely. This is why the GOP can have 12 drastically different candidates who each garnish a fairly substantial following. We can no longer agree on what is “best.” Enter the Libertarian party.

                As I asked questions regarding the role of government I began to see that the consistent factor throughout history is how we don’t need the government to make legislation regarding every aspect of our lives. There is great value in only creating regulations where regulations are necessary. For all of my Christian sisters and brothers out there – there is freedom in realizing that regulating sin is no more holy than not regulating sin. Whether or not a nation decides they will punish sin doesn’t change the morality of its people. Freedom exists in stepping back and allowing people to make their own choices with God, the Holy Spirit, and the consequences to be enough – we don’t have to add legal reprimands.

                The Puritans outlawed sin to a much greater extent than we do currently and history tells us that rather than this creating a more holy community it bred more lies, deceit, and hypocrisy. The Christian ideal shouldn’t be a country that outlaws all sin. The Christian ideal should be a country that fights for your freedom to make your own choices and stands by you through whatever the Father chooses to use to teach you.

                This is why I have embraced the Libertarian platform. I believe Gov. Gary Johnson is the best thing for our country right now. I believe legalizing marijuana, defunding excessive governmental programs, limiting governmental terms, turning NSA’s focus away from American citizens, returning Education to the state and local level, allowing adults to purchase and keep firearms, pulling back international intervention, and introducing a flat tax is a fantastic direction in which to move.