Think about this

In this farewell
There’s no blood
There’s no alibi
‘Cause I’ve drawn regret
From the truth
Of a thousand lies

So let mercy come
And wash away
What I’ve done

I'll face myself
To cross out what i’ve become
Erase myself
And let go of what i’ve done

Put to rest
What you thought of me
While I clean this slate
With the hands of uncertainty

So let mercy come
And wash away
What I’ve done

I'll face myself
To cross out what i’ve become
Erase myself
And let go of what i’ve done

For what I’ve done
I start again
And whatever pain may come
Today this ends
I’m forgiving what I’ve done!!!

What I’ve done
Forgiving what I’ve done



Then interpret it this way.

Religion and Politics

I normally don’t get too involved in politics, but something has my ear these days. I find it interesting that religion is such a huge part of this presidential election. What troubles me so much is that one candidate has said that his personal beliefs will guide his life, but not his presidency (if he wins). This has nothing to do with Mit Romney’s LDS theology and everything to do with his commitment to his theology.

How is one’s personal belief system going to hold sway over his/her life, especially spiritual beliefs that usually permeate one entire life, without it affecting the way they do their job? Can someone’s spiritual beliefs be put on pause, while the individual makes a decision? If it can I propose that their beliefs are not as important to them as they would like people to think.

As an exercise, lets make a list of issues our next President (whomever that may be) might encounter and see if it is possible to leave one’s personal conviction at the door.

Taxes- More or less (depends on your view of government)? Not necessarily a theological issue, but one related to one’s principle.
Homosexual rights (gay marriage)- nope
Abortion- nope
War- nope (again)
Health care-nope
Supreme Court Appointments- nope
Cabinet Appointments- nope

Here is the point. If you have a particular conviction about an issue, state it. People will either support you because they agree or won’t because they don’t. Don’t view your beliefs and convictions as a means to an end. Don’t tout yourself as a person with a particular set of values, then tell everyone you are willing to lead without those values as your guide.

Look at this way, would you vote for a person who is an out-of-the-closet racist, but swears their hate and prejudice will not influence their Presidency?

What about a pedophile?
What about a Marxist?
What about a capitalist?
What a Muslim?

My point is that you are what you are because of what you hold to be valuable, sacred and true. These convictions have guided you up to this point in your life, what leads us to believe that you are going to chuck them go without a guide. The easiest set of convictions will always fill the vacuum when other more rigorous ones are removed. A ship without a rudder crashes every time.

No wonder people are so easily persuaded by competing ideas.
No wonder people are so ready to give up on their belief when confronted by life.

I hope that whoever our next President is gets elected because of thier beliefs and values and not in spite of them. I hope this person sticks with their values and convictions through the ups and the downs. This will show that not matter what they hold as sacred, at least they are a person of integrity.

Do you follow?

How the church reacts...part 3

I read an article a few weeks back that has got me thinking. In the article the author points out several difference streams of the emerging church. After reading these I opened up the question a little more and asked, “ How do churches address the issues of cultural change?” The first answer to this question is easy: they deny or ignore it. From there I think it is safe to make a few classifications.

Theological Changes: “Remove that which may offend.”

· The experience caused by interacting with Scripture is to be valued above the veracity of the text.

· Difficult or uncomfortable doctrines are spiritualized, allegorized or ignored.
o The atonement- it is cruel of God to punish Jesus for something he did not do.
o Hell is not literal, but metaphorical.
o Truth is relative to one’s interpretive community. (“The incredulity of the meta-narrative.”)
o Homosexuality- the Bible is just out dated.

· Jesus is viewed as important, even central, but one can still be a “Christian” without submitting to Jesus.

· Society determines the way people should think about current issues, instead of the Bible informing society about current issues.

· An apologetic of action is better then an apologetic arguments.

· The burden of proof is on Christian theology to answer life’s question.
o Where did I come from? Macro-evolution
o Who am I? A computer made out of meat.
o Why am I here? Nihilism
o What happens after I die? Nothing

· Science is master, theology is servant.

“It is better to be kind, than right.”

How the church reacts...part 2

I read an article a few weeks back that has got me thinking. In the article the author points out several difference streams of the emerging church. After reading these I opened up the question a little more and asked, “ How do churches address the issues of cultural change?” The first answer to this question is easy: they deny or ignore it. From there I think it is safe to make a few classifications.

Philosophical Changes: “A return to the 1st century church.”

· Driven by core values- Not what we want to be, but what we are.

· Missional- God has left us here for a reason. We do not exist for ourselves. We are the mission of God.

· Organic view of ministry and leadership.

· Holistic

· Bigger is not better
o Emphasis on community.
o Emphasis on church planting

· Sunday mornings don’t constitute the whole of the church.

· The experiencial side of faith is valued.

· Social action is crucial

· Is reacting to what it sees in “methodological” churches. Sometimes viewed negatively, sometimes viewed as just different.

· Doesn’t have issues with doctrines of the church, but to take issue with the way they are packaged and presented.

Asks, “How does the church minister in a Postmodern culture?”

How the church reacts...part 1

I read an article a few weeks back that has got me thinking. In the article the author points out several difference streams of the emerging church. After reading these I opened up the question a little more and asked, “ How do churches address the issues of cultural change?” The first answer to this question is easy: they deny or ignore it. From there I think it is safe to make a few classifications.

Methodological Changes: “Change the method, but not the message!”

· Change the name of the church
o Remove denominational distinction- Brookhurst Baptist Church
o Remove words those outside the church don’t understand- Anointed King Community Church
o Make it sound upbeat or hopeful- Miracle Hills Church

· Change the worship music
o Make it sound for upbeat and like the music people hear on the radio.

· Change the atmosphere of the sanctuary.
o Paint it.
o Move it.
o Light it.
o Remove the BIG pulpit and any other religious symbols.
o Make it casual

· Change the preaching style
o More topical
o More felt needs
o More “how-to” messages
o Less talk of money, sex and suffering

· Change the language used
o Like the church name, don’t use word people don’t understand. E.g. atonement, washed in the blood, tribulation.

· Emphasize “excellence” in planning, worship and programs

· Attractional

This approach follows ministry trend, is pragmatic and changes only on the surface.