Reflections on "Planet Earth" and Other Unpleasant Things

So I was laying in my bed trying to go to sleep but was rather unsuccessful in my attempt. I was laying there and felt something crawling on my body underneath the covers. Usually I'm not too wierded out by these sorts of things. This was an exception. I reached across my body and swiped my hand briskly across my arm, where i felt something was rummaging about. As I ran my hand across my arm I felt my hand collect a rather large ball that suddenly felt slightly damp. God only knows what was crawling on my arm. I didn't consider this too much and tried to go back to sleep, but the wetness of my index finger and thumb was enough to keep me awake.

So there I laid, and in a matter of moments, I felt as if all the hairs on my body began to twitch. I tried to ignore this thought but it became more and more pronounced. I ran my hand quickly across my back and chest hoping that there was nothing there. Fortunately, nothing was found. All this to say that the imagination sucks when your trying to sleep.

Then couple this with the fact that I just finished watching the PBS miniseries "Planet Earth". This is actually a rather disturbing show to watch right before you try to sleep. I laid in bed imagining myself being chased by all sorts of predators. A mountain lion came and tried to attack me, and I imagined what would be the most effective way to take down a mountain lion. I lept onto the lion's back and put it in a sleeper-hold and caused it to pass out.

Then I was taken off into antarctica, where there is nothing but rock and ice for thousands of miles. This is not the most pleasant of thoughts.

Anyway, a large bug that I slaughtered in my bed coupled with watching nature's most extreme animals is not usually the best subject matter to have your head filled with when you're trying to sleep.

Sweet dreams

Some Thoughts on Rick Warren Praying for Obama

We can all be happy that Obama didn't ask Jeremiah Wright to pray. I mean, Rick Warren is no John Piper, and Warren has rather questionable theology and pragmatics, but at least Warren isn't a total nut case.

Both sides are defecating in their pants again on this one. Warren's acceptance is seen as some sort of support for a baby-killing, embryo-destroying, homosexual-promoting man. Obama's extension is seen as some sort of support for a gay-hating, choice-denying, freedom-squashing, right-winged barney. It may very well be that this is the case, but the reactions on both sides are ludicrous.

If Obama had asked Billy Graham to pray, as Graham had done for 11 other presidents, then I'm sure that the furor would not be the same. Yeah, the homosexual agenda would be up in arms, yeah the uber-conservatives would be writing blogs left and right, but it wouldn't be the same. The point is, Graham showed true tolerance, he confronted presidents whom he disagreed with yet still sought influence with them.

I'm not the biggest fan of Warren, he downplays portions of the gospel to make it more digestable. Sinners do not enjoy going to church and hearing that God's wrath is on you and that you are a sinner and need to repent. Sinners don't like hearing about a bloody, crucified savior who tells you that you must do the same, every single day of your life, no matter what it costs you. But as far as Warren's decision to pray at Obama's inaguration is concerned, i sit a little more 'liberal' than some of my Christian brothers.

First, a quick praise for Obama (WHAT! praise for OBAMA!!! are you out of your mind?????? Yeah, a bit). Obama is showing in this act true tolerance. I know, tough pill to swallow all you conservatives, that someone we couldn't love to disagree with more is holding out some sort of hand of fellowship to us. At least he's not holding a gun to our head and telling us to recant... But Obama's act here is a positive sign. Apparently God is already answering some of our prayers, in that he has got an evangelical still praying for the nation, not some wack-o like Jeremiah Wright. But on to other things...

As Warren has quoted, Scripture tells us to "pray for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. this is good and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 1:2-4). The problem is not with Warren being the one asked to pray. The problem is not even with Warren accepting to pray. If God has opened a door for Christians to pray infront of America, then praise God for the opportunity.

The problem is what Warren will pray.

Given Warren's less-than-stellar track record for speaking prophetically and not "not holding back all the counself of God", the problem we will have is whether Warren will speak God's truth, whether America wants to hear it or not.

Will Warren confront America's sins? Will he name her gross immoralities and idolatries? Will he pray for God's forgiveness upon our wicked nation? Will he pray first and foremost that "all will come to a saving knowledge of the truth"? Will he pray that Christians will be kept safe? Will he pray that Jesus Christ will be exalted in this land above everything else, even iPhones?

That's the tipping point. If Warren dishes out some, "Oh Lord, please bless our nation" without one ounce of prophecy, then Warren will have squandered his opportunity. If John the Baptist were here, who got his head cut off by Herod for telling him how sinful his deeds were, I'm sure he would have no problem knowing exactly what to pray for, namely, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Praise God that he has opened an opportunity for a bible-believing evangelical (no matter how we disagree with Warren) to stand before America and pray for her and her leaders. No may we pray that Warren will use that moment to exalt Christ above all and not simply try to maintain some equalibrium of false tolerance.

How to really spot a legalist

You want to know how to really spot a legalist? Just look for pride.

Anyone can be a legalist. You don't have to be some white-bread, shirt-tucked, glasses-wearing, bible-thumping, goodie-two-shoes, homeschooler to be a legalist. At the root of legalism is thinking that your way is best, i.e., thinking that you have a monopoly on how to live life. You can be a Mohawked, spiked belted, drinking, smoking, swearing, cursing, non-church-going party-animal and be a legalist. Either way, both people, the homeschooler and the party animal, are in the same boat.

The Christian life isn't primarily about how you live, its about what you believe. Both sides of the parties are judging each other, the party-animal and the homeschool. Everyone thinks they know how life is supposed to be lived and how everyone else has it wrong.

The fact is, we all have it wrong. That's why we need Jesus. We're all a bunch of self-loving, self-exalting, arrogant, prideful, God-haters. Before God, we're all legalists, following our own set of rules that we think "approves" us before God. Just because you don't follow the ten commandments doesn't mean you're not a legalist. Your Law might actually be that you don't attempt to follow any law. And if you follow that law you think that's what makes God accept you. When you break that law and end up doing something like stopping smoking, then you get all bent out of shape because you broke your own man-made law.

In front of Christ, we have nothing. Instead of sitting back like a pack of passive emo-kids, act like a man and be strong. Go up to those legalists yourself and confront them on their own grounds - start loving them. Jesus went over to the legalists houses. Check out the story of Simon, or how about Nicodemus. Of course Jesus confronts their legalism but he still went out of his way to meet the legalist at their own house. Jesus still confronts your legalism too. Do you follow your own set of rules or do you follow Christ? What's at the center of your theology, Jesus or Yourself?

Legalism isn't even wrong. God doesn't hate legalists, God hates hypocrites. God hates people who think they're really living in obedience to him but are really living in rebellion against him. The kind of legalists that God loves are those who follow the Law of Christ. God doesn't love you because you follow the Law of Christ. You follow the Law of Christ because God loves you. And at the very heart of the law of Christ is loving God and loving your neighbor. God loves when Christians do everything in their power to follow that law. Not because they think God accepts them because of it, but because they already know that God accepts them because of Jesus and nothing is more important that living in obedience to that Law.

God loves it when the homeschooler reaches his hand out to the party-animal and invites him over for dinner and helps him out however he can. And God loves it when the party-animal reaches his hand out to the homeschooler and invites him over for dinner and helps him out however he can.

How do you really spot a legalist? Just look and see who they are following.

Newsweek Threw Out the Bait and Christians Bit It

Does it strike anyone as odd that Newsweek of all places would publish an article biblically supporting Homosexuality? I mean why Newsweek of all sources? I don't think it was ever a question if Newsweek ever supported homosexuality. I mean, they are one of the most liberal magazines out there. Christians have hopped on this article like college students on the Miller bus going through Santa Barbara. Seriously. Mention the word homosexual and Christianity in the same sentence and its like dragging a dead gazelle through the Lion exhibit at the Wild Animal Park.

Now, just a quick disclaimer: Christians need to defend the biblical evidence against homosexual unions. But swear I've seen like 3 articles per day, per blog on the blogs I regularly visit about this article in Newsweek. Some guy actually wrote a 22 page polemic against the Newsweek article. I'm not saying this a waste, but it's not like there isn't already a wealth of information out there on this subject by conservatives. But this isn't my focus anyway, just a side note.

The thing that is quite absurd to me is that Christians totally bit the bait on this one, hook, line and sinker. Let's take a step back for a second and look at the current situation. 1) We're headed into the biggest recession we've seen in at least 20 years. 2) Newsweek is struggling financially. 3) Homosexuality is the hottest controversial topic right now. So if a News journal is in need of money, how are they going to get it? They are going to write articles that they know people are going to read. I'm no journalist, but it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that the best way to get a bunch of people to read your article is to pick the most controversial topic and write something that will guarantee a response.

This was a total ploy on Newsweek's part to get readers. They totally sold themselves out journalistically to get you to read their artice. They knew exactly what would happen if they published this article - Christians would crap their pants and call for the dismantling of Newsweek. Which is exactly the response they wanted. The best way to piss off the silent majority and get them talking is take a punch right at the center of their thinking. Result: guaranteed magazine sales.

So, Christians were totally duped by Newsweek on this one. Not that this article shouldn't be defended against, but the first place Christians should spend their effort is exposing Newsweek for the sham of a magazine that it is. If you undermine their credibility, nobody will care about their arguments presented in the magazine - they'll read the Newsweek headline, "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" and think, "Who cares what Newsweek thinks anyway, they're totally biased and terrible journalists at that!" and walk over and buy their Cosmopolitan magazine.

So, I at least commend Newsweek for being shrewd businessmen. Christians on the other hand need a swift kick in the pants for being suckered by a rather paltry news magazine. Nonetheless, Newsweek deserves a beating for being so overtly biased in their reporting. They should change their name to "Newsweak".

Late Nights, Manliness and Papers

People who say they loved college obviously did not study very hard in school.

2:30 a.m. and still trying to put out a paper is not my concept of "fun".

But there is something that feels rather manly about staying up really late, drinking black coffee and rubbing my hands through my facial hair while writing a research paper on some significant historical topic.

Hopefully these pictures will remind you of how much "fun" college is.