This Old House

New siding and insulation: $5,000
New roof: $10,000
New windows: $12,000
New HVAC: $15,000

Satisfaction in knowing I'm the new poster child for This Old House: Priceless

I am now the owner of a 3,000 square foot money pit. It has no driveway, a dilapidated garage, a bad roof, 50-year-old faux-brick celotex siding, rotting soffits, termite damage, sagging floors, no air conditioning, smelly carpets, a bathroom with a disgusting shower and a chimney that's caving in, (which, incidentally, is still the only way the furnace flue gases leave the house).

So why'd I buy it?

$31,000 on an auction is all I can say.

Maybe I should apply for an Extreme Makeover...

You Are Who You Are

I couldn't help but notice the following argument in a post on The Beginner's Mind which asserts:

Those folks who risked their lives for the good of others practice their religion in such a way as to reflect that compassion for others. Being religious didn't cause them to help end slavery or further the civil rights movement. I'm not religious and I find common cause with the enemies of slavery and champions of civil rights. Religious beliefs reflect the believer not the other way around, in my opinion. Just as an atheist like myself gladly works for civil rights, a Christian wearing the hood of the KKK would likely have little problem with black slavery.
...
That's what we'd like removed from the public sphere; this notion that true morality and social justice flows from religion and nowhere else. And, yes, this is what conservative Christians believe.

The author presents two ideas in this statement: First, that we are who we are and our beliefs and life choices simply express this - they don't change us into something we were not before. Second, if you are a conservative Christian, you believe those who are not Christian are inherently immoral - incapable of knowing right from wrong.

The first point the author makes is not only wrong, in my opinion, but also irresponsible. He states an idea that has been popular for quite a while now - Eddie Vedder sang about it in a rather bland song of his entitled "Who You Are" on Pearl Jam's "No Code" album. The refrain was "You are who you are". a nice little New Age mantra, perhaps, but not worth an awful lot when you're dealing with social issues of the day. Nevermind the fact that the remainder of the lyrics were, in Eddie Vedder's trademark fashion, mumbled incoherently. Not that it would havea mattered, for it seems the remainder of the lyrics were chosen largely because their rhyme and meter, not for any particular meaning. It's interesting to note that when one of alternative rock's premier bands writes a song about the meaning of humanity, it amounts to a song about nothing...

All of this, of course, is also contrary to what Christianity teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

What the author argues is fatalistic and, in my opinion, unsustainable in the face of documentable human behavior. For example, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade publicly repudiated the abortion right for which she so ardently strove in that landmark 1973 case, but she only did so after becoming a Christian. Theodore Weld became a Christian under the preaching of Charles Finney (a man whom he hated) and began the American abolition movement in the early-mid 1800's. In both cases, we see people ultimately behaving contrariwise to who they once were. This raises the question, did they really change? If so, then "You are who you are" loses it's definitive, fatalistic edge and becomes a meaningless mantra not quite worthy of Yogi Berra.

The "You are who you are" philosophy does not admit change. It's a popular lie that is told especially loudly in homosexual circles to keep gays who do not wish to be gay from seeking treatment. The philosophy hinders true social change, and while I'm certain the author wouldn't express it in these extreme terms, if we apply that philosophy everyone, then who can fault John Mark Karr for being addicted to kiddie porn? After all, that's just the way he is, right?

Grotesque humanistic New Age philosophy aside, one issue remains: that conservative Christians believe that morality can only be found in Chistianity. As a conservative Christian, I reject that outright - and always have. Most any Christian who knows their faith well enough knows that is false. We need only cite Romans 1 or, better yet, Romans 5:14,15 to point out that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. After all, why would a non-Christian demand justice for wrongs committed if they had no sense of morality to begin with? While I know some in Christianity may express it in those terms, most would not. From the conservative Christian viewpoint, an atheist civil rights activist who has righted numerous social wrongs in their lifetime has no more claim on heaven than any professing Christian wearing a KKK hood.

Christianity clearly teaches it is not about what you've done or what you know. It's about Who you know and what He's done.

- Graffy

Supernatural Christianity

I've recently been listening to a set of tapes loaned to me by a friend from church. He gave them to me after I gave my "spiritual gifts" lesson in an adult Sunday School class a few weeks ago. Anyway, the album is entitled "The Fourth Wave" by David Pawson.

In this lecture, Pawson approaches the schism in Christianity that has long separated the evangelical and the charismatic Christians. I disagreed with many of Mr. Pawson's assertions, but he raised some interesting points about what brought on the schism and how we may go about reconciling it.

He points out that in these two different perspectives on Christianity, the focus of faith gets shifted according to each group's bias. He gives a tongue-in-cheek example by pointing out that "to the Reformer, the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Scripture. To the Catholic, it's Father, Son and Holy Virgin Mary."

His point was that as Christians, we often ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and substitute Him for an unhealthy infatuation with relics and mysticism, or exegetical dogmatism.

Pawson really got me thinking on this topic. Truly, if God is still present in this world and actively working in our lives, why do we (as evangelicals) tend to limit that action to the ways we apply Scripture to our lives? I'm not saying that most evangelicals believe God doesn't work in any other way, just that we tend to believe it happens largely by reading the Bible.

I think it's a natural tendency to minimize the spiritual aspect of Christianity in it's more "intellectual" cultures. That is, the more we focus on the exegesis and exposition of Scripture, the more we tend to think of the supernatural aspects of Christianity as being past events, not a present reality. That's something which charismatics have rejected outright, and rightly so.

Paul pointed out that our battle is not with the flesh and blood, but "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

Paul was explicit that we are at war and the war far exceeds the reality that any of us percieve. While I don't believe every misdeed is a result of demonic attack, I do believe that when we choose to follow God, Satan raises the stakes. We battle not only against our flesh, but inevitably against demonic forces. I don't pretend to know what the spiritual war Paul indicates looks like, though I can clearly point to episodes in my own life when I am certain my struggle was with more than just my own flesh.

When I compound my own experience with that of others, the evidence is too great to ignore. I've listened to friends describe their (sometimes physical) encounters with demonic forces. One pastor in our denomination described performing an exorcism which immediately healed a woman. I cannot (and dare not) discount the supernatural aspect of my faith.

I have long held that the major difference between a charismatic and an evangelical is the charismatic tends to embrace the supernatural with alarming disregard, whereas the evangelical tends to regard the supernatural in terms of disbelief, suspicion, and even fear. Whether we see our faith in charismatic or an evangelical terms, we can neither fully understand or comfortably ignore it's supernatural aspects.

By definition, the supernatural supersedes reality as we know it. Christianity teaches that it defines reality, whether we acknowledge it or not.

- Graffy


"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Christianity and Politics in America

[This is a little off topic for me, but my curiosity got the better of me...]

I have often heard it said that 85% of America is Christian, an assertion I've always considered it to be bogus.

To be sure, what defines a "Christian" directly influences that percentage. For example, many Muslims consider themselves (by Islamic doctrine) to also be Christian, so who's to say they're wrong? Thus, when someone describes so much of the American population as being Christian it would do well for the reader to very carefully consider the writer's bias.

George Barna, a Christian pollster, compiled some interesting statistics regarding Christianity in America:

• 9% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2006)
  
• 36% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2006)
• Atheists and agnostics comprise 10% of adults nationwide. (2006)
• 10% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2006)

In his classifications, Barna was smart enough to realize it's not what you say that makes you what you are, but what you believe. Thus, when he classified people as "born-again" or "evangelical", he used strict criteria to define them.

To quote the website,

In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

Since only 36% of Americans would classify themselves as "born-again", the statement that "85% of Americans are Christian" is clearly false. Truly, if one is to call himself or herself Christian, acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as a substitute for our sin (made possible by his resurrection) is the qualifying belief that defines one as a Christian. To deny this doctrine is to deny what makes Christianity what it is. Also, Barna's definition of "Evangelical" is a sub-classification of a "Born-Again", that is, an Evangelical meets seven further criteria in addition to the two laid out for a Born-Again.

So where's the rest of the supposed 85%?

Barna classifies more of the U.S. population as being "Notional Christians". Such people may claim to be Christian, but do not believe that they will go to Heaven on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection (because they simply don't believe it happened). 39% of the U.S. population can be classified as Notional Christians, bringing the total "Christian" population to about 75%.

Often, the "85% Christian" statistic is quoted for politial purposes. Politically speaking, however, a profession of faith hardly equates to an alliegance to any one political party. The political breakdowns of the Notional and Born-Again Christians (including Evangelical) shows that 40% of non-Evangelical Born-Agains align themselves with the Democratic Party along with 42% of the Notional Christians.

Thus, for political purposes, if we take 75% (not 85%) of the culture to be "Christian", fully 30% of the American "Christian" population is Democrat. Another 27% may be considered Republican, leaving 43% in the lurch.

Looking at the numbers, it would seem that while religious views have created polarizations in American politics, it hardly divides Americans on public policy like some would claim. Rather, from the religious sphere, we see that the split between Republican and Democrat is nearly equal and the majority of "religious" (again, not necessarily "Christian") people claim no aliegance, though they may have conservative or liberal leanings.

- Graffy

It's All Greek To Me

Ah, yes. How I miss the heady days of Optimus Prime and the Autobots raging against the evil forces of Megatron and his Decipticons. I miss those guys...

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of the interesting tidbits that come out of my occasional forays into New Testament Greek.

First, courtesy of my friend Ron, did you know that never in the New Testament does the word "atonement" appear? We often refer to Christ's death on the cross as an "atoning sacrifice". But to atone is an Old Testament word that essentially means to cover over or make up for your sin. The authors of the New Testament never held that view. In the New Testament, Christ's death is a propitiation - it's a complete removal of the sins we bear - not merely a "covering over".

Second, did you know that when Jesus was transfigured on the Mount in Matthew 17, He was really transforned?

In New Testament Greek, there are four words that are used to describe changes people undergo. There are "morphoo" changes and "schema" changes. "Morphoo" changes are changes in form (think metamorphosis) whereas "schema" changes are changes in appearance only (think schematic - a figure or representation, but not the thing itself). Thus the New Testament describes changes in these four terms: Configure, Transfigure, Conform, and Transform.

So how does this apply to New Testament thinking?

In all cases except one, "schema" changes are used in a negative context. Satan "transfigures" himself into an angel of light in 2nd Corinthians and we are not to "configure" ourselves to the present age in Romans 12.

Opposite that are the "morph" changes - changes in actual form, not the appearance of it. These are always positive. In Matthew 17, Jesus was literally "transformed" (not transfigured). Paul exhorts us to be "conformed" to the image of Christ (Romans 8).

It is one thing to be changed in how you look. It is something wholly different to be changed in who you are.

When Satan transfigures himself into an angel of light, he can only "meta-schema" or trans-figure how he looks. However, his change does not reflect who he truly is. No matter how much Satan may disguise himself as an angel of light, it forever remains that - a disguise. He is still a minister darkness. He has been transfigured, but not transformed.

When Christ was changed on the mountain, we say in English that He was transfigured. But really, He was transformed. He literally became something in human form that He was not before. Paul exhorts us to "be transformed" by the renewing of our minds with that same word in Romans 12.

So what makes a transformation more than just a transfiguration? A "transformation" in the positive sense is a complete change, but it is a change that is based upon an underlying reality. Christ was transformed in body to reflect His divine nature and Paul exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds to reflect the nature God has already given us.

To simplify the idea then, to "transfigure" or "configure" is to change how we appear to reflect something apart from ourselves. To "transform" or to "conform" is to change how we appear to reflect what God already says is true about us.

So, there you have it.

Be Ye Transformed.

Hey. Stupid.

I was recently following a car that had this bumper sticker attached to it's hindquarters.

Of course, I can appreciate the humor. I chuckled at it. I even cracked up a bit when I went searching for the image on the internet.

But really, why would anyone want to put this on their car? Humor aside, what does this really communicate? Obviously, it means the driver of the car considers himself intellectually superior to whomever is unfortunate enough to be following him (or her). Strangely enough, it's precisely that attitude that lies behind road rage:

Everyone on the road is a blithering idiot. Except me.

We joke about it and poke fun at it, but no matter how dangerously or humorously the feeling is expressed, in every form it is the exact same feeling expressed to varying degrees.

I'm not really meaning to blog about road rage. What the bumper sticker really made me think about was how we tend to think of other people largely (if not purely) in terms of how they affect us and our lives. I know I do this. People can have a profound impact on how I feel by a word, gesture, or action and the impact it has on me is purely the result of how these things strike my current mood.

It's often easy to forget that the people with whom I interact on a daily basis, whether I know them or not, have lives all their own. They have their own issues and concerns. And just as I rarely bother to think about their individual lives in my split-second appraisals of their character and intellect, it should go without saying that they rarely bother to think about me in the same way.

Thus, when someone puts a bumper sticker on their car's butt that asks me, "Did you eat an extra bowl of STUPID this morning?" they're publicly professing that I have a vastly inferior intellect. Naturally, my reaction is one of, "Who does this idiot think he's talking to???" I mean, anyone who puts something like that on their car obviously can't be very intelligent, right? If they think I'm that dumb, they have to obviously be dumber. Or dumberer...

Negative criticism polarizes people. It draws battle lines, forces people to take sides, and defines right and wrong based on a label, not on an argument. Criticism evokes emotional, not intellectual, debates. If you don't believe me, try reading a few blogs on politics. For as many that express genuine concern (or admiration) for the latest political events in government, there are those who laud and lambast our president for his decisions and policies purely because he is a Republican. Such people have no regard for who he is or what he really believes as a person. It's simply a matter of how he has personally pleased or offended them, as if their happiness were all that mattered. There was a time in this country when everyone respected the president, no matter their level of agreement with his decisions and policies. They did this simply because he was the PRESIDENT and they shared a common respect for the office and it's great responsibilities. In times past, conservatives and liberals alike understood that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

I admit, I argue my point from a conservative bias. To be fair, I've seen a good number of critical attacks from the conservative side, as well. Bill Clinton suffered a great deal of character asassination from the conservative camp after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. I even recall one particular attack levied by a Christian against Billy Graham because Rev. Graham once described Bill Clinton as a personal friend...

Ultimately, I suppose it doesn't really matter, because conservatives are right and liberals are wrong, anyway.

And if you disagree with me, you obviously had two extra bowls of stupid this morning.

- Graffy

Driving Me Crazy

I had a funny experience the other day at work. I had decided to leave my rather stifling cubicle confines and drive to a nearby town to deal with a report concerning misbehaving traffic signals. It was close enough to quitting time that I wouldn't be able to do much when I got there, but it beat sitting at my desk trying to keep my eyes open. So, I hopped in my blue Dodge pickup (the only blue Dodge pickup the State of Illinois seems to own) and I took off down 7th Street toward my destination.

7th Street in Dixon is a very hilly street - especially between my place of employment (the Illinois Department of Transportation) and IL Route 26. Heading away from my office, the road drops considerably into a deep vally and then rises even higher to a peak where sits a Catholic church and a small park.

Anyway, as I was descending into the valley, there was a mini-van in front of me. I'd paid little attention to it, until it's left turn signal started blinking. Normally, when things like this happen, the average driver makes decisions almost subconsciously. You don't really think about what's happening, you just respond because experience has taught you what most drivers will do when they turn on their left turn signals. So I didn't think much about her blinking signal, except, "Where's she going to turn?" There didn't look like a good place for her to make a left turn any time soon, judging by the rate she was slowing down.

Then she did something that caught me by surprise. With her left turn signal still engaged, she swerved to the right and pulled up next to the curb.

"Ok," I thought, "She's getting out of the way of traffic, so I'll just zip past her."

I had no more than laid my foot on the accelerator to speed past her mini-van when she very suddenly pulled directly into my path. Naturally, I hit the brakes. It was close, but I managed to avoid a collision, but not without getting her attention. She then completed her u-turn in front of me, parked her car on the opposite side of the street next to her apartment and leaned out the window to yell at me, "Hey! Didn't you see my turn signal?"

I moved on, not wanting to spark a confrontation. By the time I got to the top of the hill, I was mad. I'd realized that if I were a cop, she'd have had a ticket in hand by now. By the time I got to the signals at Route 26, I'd chewed her out three times in my head, each time telling her that first, what she did was completely illegal, turn signal or not, and second, the next time she decides to do something like that, to pull over and let the traffic go by so no one sees her doing it, much less gets in a wreck with her. And I was still chewing her out as I left Dixon's city limits.

There's a certain sweetness about the bitterness we can bear toward someone who's wronged us. It's almost delectable, being furious at someone who has so clearly wronged you and deserves to be punished for it. Yet that same sweetness that captivates our minds, indulges our emotions, can easily ruin a moment, a day, a week, or even a lifetime. Anger itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but when we fall in love with our anger, it's bound to end up hurting us. I realized as I drove farther down the road that I was becoming infatuated with this sense of having been wronged. In short, I was letting her crazy driving drive me crazy!

One of my favorite artists is Don Chaffer of Waterdeep. A couple years ago he put out an album entitled Whole 'Nother Deal which ranks among the greatest albums I've ever owned - secular or Christian. The third track on this album is a song entitled "On Our Way To Crazy" wherein Chaffer intones the refrain:

"Once we love those things that hurt us, we're on our way to crazy..."

In Deuteronomy 32:35, God states simply, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay". This verse popped into my head and it prompted me to give the whole thing over to God in a quick prayer. I prayed for my attitude and finally let go of the issue.

Yet there remained one problem: no matter how I felt toward this nameless woman, she'd done something wrong. It wasn't simply wrong, it was stupid and dangerous. Her response to me after the incident showed me that she didn't think she'd done anything wrong - which means she'd be likely to do it again.

It seems to me that we often confuse forgiveness with the denial of justice. Many people presume that to forgive someone of their wrong is to deny the service of justice in that case. Rather, the purpose of forgiveness is to ensure that a skewed justice is not being enforced: that the punishment fits the crime and is not skewed or biased by the personal feelings of those wronged. It gets at a central idea that a lot of Christians overlook: Our emotions are secondary to our will and our will is to be held subject to God's will.

In this case, I had cleared myself of any possible ill feelings I may have had at this woman who wronged me. The issue was no longer whether or not I had been wronged, but whether this woman posed a danger to other drivers. Something had to be done about that. As a result of that conviction, I didn't hesitate to get her license plate number as I drove past her minivan parked alongside the road on my way back to the office.

Once I got back to my desk, I called the local police station and reported the incident. The officer on the other end thanked me and said, "We'll go yell at her." Later, I was thinking about that comment. He acted as though I wanted them to "yell" at her. It seems he presumed that I was irate over this situation, just seething and fuming over what had happened, desperate to sick the cops on her and get back at her.

And at one point, I was.

- Graffy

Darwin the Plagarist?

I was scouting some of my favorite haunts. I found this article on William Dembski's blog, Uncommon Descent.

The author claims Darwin plagarized the previous work of a scientist (a Creationist, of all things) who figured out what natural selection was and how it worked a couple decades before Darwin did.

Whether or not Darwin plagarized, I was fascinated to discover that the darling of evolution has it's roots in Creation science. But then so does calculus, basic astronomy, and the scientific method (to name a few).

Be forewarned, it's a brainy article.


- Graffy

David the Drifter

One evening about two years ago my wife (then, my fiance) and I were enjoying a movie at my house. Our movie was interrupted by the doorbell, rung by my next door neighbor. He'd just stopped by to let us know that he and his family were going on vacation for the next two weeks and could I pretty please watch the house for him? I agreed and then he added:

"Ummm... I don't know if you noticed, but there's this guy that's sitting at the corner of the intersection. He doesn't look dangerous, but I think he's a homeless guy. Just so you know." and with that he thanked me and left.

I relayed the information to Nikki and then we both peeked out a window to see what we could see. Sure enough, there was a silhoutte of a man sitting under the streetlight near a fire hydrant at the intersection. We watched him for a while as he sat there and did absolutely nothing. Then we finished watching our movie. Shortly there after, Nikki went home.

As soon as she left, I peered out the window again at the homeless guy inhabiting the southeast corner of the intersection near my house. I watched him for a while not sure what to think and wondering what I should do. Finally, a sense of cowardice came over me and I chastised myself for peeking out my window at a homeless guy, as if he's some sort of social unmentionable (which was probably what several others on my street were doing or had already done). Rebuked my my own conscience, I did what seemed the logical thing: I went out and spoke to the guy.

It was really kind of funny... and sad. When I approached him, I said the only thing I could think to say:

"Ya know, I don't really have much I can offer, but if you'd like some ramen noodles or something, I'd be happy to give ya something to eat."

Perhaps you've never done something like this before. Maybe you've done it several times. In either case, I don't blame you if you're chuckling at me. Anyway, he didn't hear a word I'd said because he was dead asleep, though he slept sitting up (which led me to presume he was awake). When he didn't respond and I realized he was unconscious, I took the opportunity to look at him in the glow of the street light. He was an older man with leathery and darkly-tanned skin that looked as though it was going to drip off his bones. He had a sleeping bag and an overstuffed backpack at his side that he reclined against. He looked like, well, a homeless guy.

Anyway, I cleared my throat. He woke up and I repeated my offer. He gruffly replied, "No. I got this from Pizza Hut," as he gestured to a foil-wrapped package. He went on, "but I probably won't eat it cuz I bet it's poisoned. They've done that to me before."

I said, "Oh," and sat down on the grass between him and the fire hydrant. I asked him a couple of questions and he proceeded to regale me with his life's story. Few of the details stick in my memory, but I do remember the general course his life took. He told the story backwards. He talked about the things he'd done in the last few decades, back to the battles he'd been involved in during World War II. But that was nothing compared to what he'd done in the first World War. At this point, I had a sneaking suspicion that life on the streets had taken a toll on his mind. My suspicions were confirmed when he went on to describe things he'd done back in the 1870's. Near the end of our conversation (which had taken some 40 minutes) he had worked back to the life and times of Jesus Christ, describing Jesus' disciples as hypocrites and anti-Christs because they wrote things into the Bible that Jesus never said (he knew because he was one of the disciples himself.) Between you me and the fire hydrant, you might say I gained some insights into the homeless I'd never considered before.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to laugh at this situation, funny as some of it turned out to be. In reality, I sat and listened to him talk because I really had no idea what to say. I thought about the fact that at one time in his life, he must have been as sane and normal as anyone else, but life as a drifter had taken it's toll on him. I prayed for him as he told me about the life he'd created in his mind. I wish I could have done something about it, but what?

Anyway, I have omitted one element in this tale thus far: the police officer who wouldn't go away. Early in the homeless man's recounting of his colorful past, a police officer in a patrol car had pulled up to the curb to see if everything was all right. I waved him on but he kept checking back every twenty minutes or so. On his third visit, he finally stopped, got out, and said,

"David, you have to move on. We've had several complaints. People don't want you sleeping here tonight."

David replied, "Well, where am I gonna go?"

The officer said, "Just go down by the Abraham Lincoln cabin along the riverfront. You can sleep there tonight."

David looked at the cop and grumbled, "You know those gangsters are just going to bother me again."

The officer replied, "They're on the north side, David. You're on the south. They won't bother you."

David leaned over and picked up his belongings, insisting all the while that they would. Then he headed west toward the small park that was home to a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, still talking to himself.

As soon as David was out of ear shot, I looked at the cop and asked, "So where did he come from?"

I was told that David migrated from the county to the north - he'd been picked up there for loitering and being a nuisance. He got a night in jail and they sent him on his way, ending up in Dixon eventually. I asked the cop if Dixon offered anything for people in his situation. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "Nope. We have to keep pushing them around town until they decide to leave or get arrested." It seemed like a frustrating thing to have to deal with, and the cop communicated as much in his response to me. I finally bade the officer a good night, crossed the street to my house and went to bed.

I saw David a few more times that week - once on my way to work (I stopped and spoke to him briefly) and then at a convenience store where he seemed to just stand around inside and watch the TV on the wall. Eventually, I heard a report that he'd been arrested for loitering in a business in Dixon and refusing to leave. After that, I neither saw him or heard of him again.

Since then, I've wondered from time to time just how significant homelessness is in Dixon. Honestly, the issue of poverty and homelessness in my community is something that's been in the back of my mind since I met David, though I've no clear idea on what to do about it. However, I do stand ready to support someone who does have a vision of what to do about it, as long as it doesn't amount to staring out our windows at them and calling the police...

- Graffy

A view from across the pond...

I noticed this article linked from the Conservative Musing's weblog. I've seen the "freedom isn't free" line passed around so much that, even though I agree with it, I tend to ignore it for the most part. But in this case, the author is expressing it from a European viewpoint, which made me look at our country in a way I typically don't...

Enjoy!

- Graffy

Democans and Republicrats

This is one of the few editorial cartoons that I've actually enjoyed recently...

For those of you who don't know, the guy in the upper left is current Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. The guy in the lower right is former Illinois governor (and recent felon) George Ryan.

These days, the habit of labelling has become so predominant in the media, you can't really discuss politics until you've effectively labelled every element involed - "conservative", "liberal", "fundamentalist", etc. As if the label somehow encompasses the entirety of the ideology or person being discussed. Recent politics in the state of Illinois has reminded me that labels aren't all they're cracked up to be. Consider the above editorial morphing a very liberal Democrat into an old-school, fat-cat Republican.

It reminds me of the joke that's been floating around - that the courts have finished with George Ryan's trial just in time to start Rod Blagojevich's (who, incidentally, has already spent some $700,000 in attorney's fees from his campaign fund to deal with investigations into his office's hiring practices).

Too often, we're quick to take a label, assign one particular viewpoint to it, and create a mental effigy of what that label means to us, and then apply it with a blanket equality to whomever we think fits that bill. Lately, I've been reminding myself that although my views may be deemed largely "conservative" that hardly makes me a dyed-in-the-wool, party-line-voting Republican. To tell the truth, I'm no more fond of the Republican candidate for this fall's election for governor than I am the Democratic candidate. Ultimately, I consider the character of the candidate central to my voting interests. The latest governor has shown me exactly why.

One example has occurred in the midst of clear ethics violations that Governor Blagojevich has committed (and simply refuses to comment on). That is, in spite his behavior, he has required all state employees (of which I am one) to take an annual "ethics exam" so we know what the State of Illinois considers to be right and wrong. If we refuse to take it, we do so upon pain of dismissal.

Another example occured in 2004 when a member of my church attended the Utica memorial service (Utica is a small town in Illinois struck by a devastating tornado). He related to us later that at the service, Governor Blagojevich gave a speech likening the hardships of the people of Utica to the sufferings of the Bible character, Job. While this is not an uncommon analogy, Governor Blagojevich added a new twist to the story - he related how God caused Job's sufferings. Our church member waited patiently to greet the Governor afterwards and as he shook Blagojevich's hand, he took the opportunity to correct him. He pointed out that in the book of Job, it's quite clear that Satan caused Job's sufferings - not God. Unfazed by his theological faux pas, the Governor looked at him, shrugged his shoulders and said, "Whatever." Of course my friend was flabbergasted - God, Satan... same difference? But really, why wouldn't Governor Blagojevich care, unless, of course, he didn't believe any of it was true in the first place? Personally, I take no offense at a heathen revealing his ignorance of the Bible, but I do take offense when he presumes to be Christian by preaching it.

We had a sermon this Sunday by the only evangelical lobbyist in Springfield - Rev. Bob VandenBosch. He made an interesting point - of the 177 General Assembly members , only 10 would admit publicly that they are Christian. His point was that Christians can't play the "religion and politics don't mix" card and say that they shouldn't get involved. I'm not going to expound upon the argument, only to say that I agree with him. But as I listened to it, in my head, I started reciting all the arguments non-believers throw at Christians who are in politics. Most of them boil down to a conspiracy to "install some sort of Christian theocracy", as if requiring adherence to any sort of clearly-defined moral code demands unmitigated worship and adoration of the God who created it.

Our Founding Fathers set up America as a Republic - not a Democracy. In fact, they (Washington, Adams, Jefferson) characterized Democracy as "Very bad government" and "lunacy". We're a government that operates on the basis of a law - not the whimsy of the governed. While the people have a voice (and a considerable one at that), it is not the absolute voice. That means everyone, from the Supreme Court judge to the state governor, is required to respect the law and this demands some sort of moral rigidity in the life of the U.S. citizen.

In the political scene today, morals have made a comeback, but to make the idea more P.C., they're called "values" - it's not a matter of what's right or wrong, just what's important to you. "Morals" are reserved for the "right-wing fundamentalists", right? (there I go with the labels again).

But the point is, this nation is toast without morals. We must have a consistent and (largely) unchanging set of rules governing what's right and wrong, not just reflecting what ideas are popular (that's the difference between a Republic and a Democracy). Political candidates who refuse to recognize this (or agree with it but go and do otherwise) are no better than heathens presuming to be Christians in my view. To that end, my vote goes to the moral candidate - Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

- Graffy

A Week Off... Sort of.

Two months is too little. They let him go. They had no // Sudden healing. To think that providence would // Take a child from his mother while she prays // Is appalling. ...

[Chorus]
This is what it means to be held. // How it feels when the sacred is torn from your life // And you survive. // This is what it is to be loved. // And to know that the promise was // When everything fell we'd be held.

Natalie Grant, "Held", from the album Awaken

Pesonally, I'm no fan of mushy songs. In my estimation, Natalie Grant's song is all of that. However, when I first heard it, what kept me from turning the dial was how she would answer the unasked question: Why does a good God let bad things happen - to even His own?

Since we took a break from Tuesday night as most attendees are preparing for finals (Good luck, guys!), I thought I'd address an idea that's been on my mind, especially lately.

There's a man who attends our church who came from Chicago. He's Greek in origin and physically, he's built like a rock. I haven't really gotten to know his entire story, but I do know he's had a pretty tough go of things. For example, occupational hazards left him with MS which has progressively worsened. When I first met him, he needed a cane to walk - then two. Now he's confined to a wheelchair. Add to that numerous other health complications, two failed marriages and a daughter who is so rebellious she can't live at home and you have a person who's seen a lot of the bad things life has to offer. He's got a heart of gold though, and he's loved by our congregation - many of whom have gone well out of their way to help him as his health has worsened. It's a tough story, but what made it tougher was the news I recieved via our email prayer chain Sunday. Apparently, his house was broken into and he was severly beaten. Last report was that he was in the hospital and not doing very well. When I read the news I was simply dumbfounded. Of all the people to attack, why a guy bound to a wheelchair?

I've often heard the unbeliever's battle cry (which is often more a criminal accusation than an honest question), that if God were good and really loved us, He'd not let these sorts of things happen. It is a valid question - regardless of what one believes (or their reasons for asking it), and I honestly believe that how a religion or faith answers this question is telling of the essential nature of its dogma.

For example, in Islam, both good and bad come from God. God is not personal, He's not knowable, He does what He wills and there's no rhyme or reason to it - only the knowledge that God sees, knows, and can do everything. Thus, no matter what events befall a faithful Muslim, it is "whatever Allah wills", be it good or bad. Ultimately, there isn't even any guarantee of salvation for the faithful. As a Muslim, maybe God will save you, maybe He won't. There's no way to know for sure

In Buddhism / Hinduism, God is not really real. There is God, but not in any real sense, and the pain and evil one suffers in life is due to the results of past sins. Karma and reincarnation comprise a system of eternal punishment - you spend each life paying for the last. Eternal unforgiveness.

So what sets Christianity apart from other religions on this question?

Francis Schaeffer was a prolific writer and apologist who was stricken with cancer at the end of his life. Asked by a reporter how he felt to be told he's dying of cancer, Schaeffer responded, (to paraphrase), "Why shouldn't I get cancer and die?" He went on to point out that this world is one marred by sin and that his hope was not a happy and healthy life here, but in the hereafter.

Knowing this is what gives us staying power. It seems to be an ongoing phenomenon that unless you're "experienceing God" in some tangible way (from speaking in tongues to getting unexpected checks in exactly needed amounts), then you're missing out. I will readily admit that it's a valid desire, especially in this age, to want to feel something in one's spirituality. But if you ask many well-meaning Christians what makes their faith real to them, you'll likely hear about those mystery checks or those moments of ecstatic emotional sentiment that makes God so real.

I'm not saying that tangible proof of God's blessings in our lives should be disregarded, but it seems to me that many Christians are quick to put the cart before the horse. After all, what would happen when somone has an "off" Sunday and they leave worship feeling empty or unfulfilled or the money gets tight and that mystery check never comes?

I find it often helps to check faith with Scripture. Regarding how we are to love God, Jesus simply stated, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." (Matthew 22:37, NIV)

The idea is fairly simple: Our relationship with God is more than just emotional. In fact, to really study the idea, it is our wills that we use to worship God, not our emotions. Emotinal sentiments are secondary. That is, what gives our faith staying power is not merely knowing what we believe (or experience), but why we believe it.

It's been said that you can learn more by studying your Bible every morning over breakfast than you can in four years of seminary. One great way to strengthen your faith and learn about the Bible is to ask the challenging questions. You know, the ones you think of that don't really seem to have an answer...

Go ahead. Ask the questions you think don't have answers. Then go looking for answers and don't stop until you find them. Not only will the search itself will enrich you greatly, but you may even find you were asking the wrong question.

Philosopher and apologist Ravi Zacharias has made this statement a part of his ministry's mission:

What I believe in my heart must make sense in my mind.

He stated this idea quite succinctly in a forum at Harvard University. During an opportunity to interact with the audience, Zacharias was challeneged with the question, "Should one turn to Christianity because it helps me find happiness / contentment (or deal with pain)?"

His answer: "Absolutely not."

He went on to state,

If it is true, it will help you deal with the issue of pain and suffering. ... It is not true because it helps you deal with pain and suffering.

As an exercise, we can take Dr. Zacahrias' model for religion and apply it to the case of the mother in the song "Held":

Assuming Islam is true and the sovereign God is not good, bad or personal, then the grieving mother should be able to find comfort in a God who may or may not care about her pain but caused it nonetheless.

Assuming Buddhism is true, then the mother should be comforted to know that her child either died because of a sin they committed in a previous life or that she herself committed.

Finally, assuming Christianity is true, the comfort comes in knowing that God does not cause, desire, or take pleasure in her pain, nor does it's presence dimish His presence in her or her child's life, now and hereafter. The pain is not an end in and of itself.

Take your pick, but in my estimation, Dr. Zacharias is right - what I believe in my heart must make sense in my head. Emotion sentiment does not make truth. Rather, knowing the truth is what should determine how we feel.

Have a great week.

We're praying for you, Denny.

To work or not to work?

If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about - but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
(Romans 4:2-5 NIV)

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
(James 2:20-24 NIV)

Verses like this stress Christians. After all, here's two apostles making apparently contradictory views of salvation. Paul says we're saved by faith - deeds are useless. James says faith is useless without deeds. So which is it?

Paul and James believed the same gospel and shared largely the same theology (Galatians 2:7-10) which means we need to better understand each author's viewpoint.

Look at the book of Romans. Paul constantly refers to the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" or the "Law" (the Law of Moses). That is, he is speaking mostly from a Jewish context. So, when Paul talks about how works don't save us in Romans Ch. 4, he's referring to obeying the Law of Moses - the 613 laws God handed down on Mt. Sinai. Paul refers to this law in Romans 3:20 by saying "through the law we become conscious of sin".

James, on the other hand, focuses on how a Christian ought to behave and the only law he refers to is a "law of liberty" or a "law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12)

But is Paul's law that makes us aware of our sinfulness the same law that James calls the "law of liberty"?

Since James and Paul believed the same things about salvation, we must assume that they were either referring to two different laws, or to the same law, but in two completely different contexts.

A key to solving the riddle can be found in the book of Ezekiel:

I will spinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; ... I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.
(Ezekiel 36:25-27)

The key actions in Ezekiel 36 are performed by God: I will sprinkle / remove / put / move... which makes the salvation process pretty much entirely God's job - not man's. Therefore, Paul's idea that works are useless to earn God's favor is absolutely right.

However, that doesn't mean a saved person is free from the law - note that in the second part God says, "I will ... move you to follow my decrees and ... keep my laws." In other words, works still matter, but not until after salvation.

The engineer in me finds it useful to talk about these ideas with some simple equations (I'm grateful to my friend, Ron, who supplied me with them):

According to Paul: Faith = Salvation

According to James: Faith + Works = Salvation

According to God: Faith = Salvation + Works

In other words, while it is faith alone that saves an individual, good works / obedience to God's will is a side-effect of salvation. Without good works, there's little reason to think a "Christian" really is saved. Paul was saying that works do not contribute to salvation. James was saying that works are a natural effect of being saved - there's no such thing as a "non-practicing" Christian.

Paul mirrors Ezekiel 36 in Ephesians 2:8-10:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith ... not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Now It's My Turn

I've sat idly by for a few years watching this blog phenomenon take off and consume countless hours and minds in an immense variety of topics. Having done so, I've developed a good idea of what I think a good blog should (and should not) be.

Now it's my turn.

Intially and indefinitely, I intend to use this blog to post the Bible lessons I have developed for our Tuesday-night group. I'm doing this primarily for three reasons:

1. It helps me clarify my thoughts about the topic and figure out what content to include in the study.

2. Right now, I sit down and write key verses / ideas out on a 3x5 note card - that's fine for the study (it keeps me from commentating excessively), but not good if I ever want to go back and use it again - this is a good way to archive my notes in greater, shall we say, verbosity. :)

3. Some material just doesn't work well for our group but would go well in a blog. I hope others read what I post and enjoy it. I'm not out to start fires or make waves - I have no intention of posting acidic or hostile blogs about anything. Personally, I think such blogging appears to be an immediate indicator that the author really is writing ignorantly about their subject for the sake of an emotional hutzpah. There's something to be said for venting, but it should be saved for private conversations with friends, in my opinion...

Perhaps some of the lessons will be helpful for others leading studies / doing devotionals. In any case, it's primarily a tool for me to maintain ordered and traceable thought patterns.

Incidentally, the last point explains the title - "Graff Paper". Hopefully, this will be a good way to keep my thoughts straight about what I teach.

Until my next post!

Graffy