The Kingdom Come

Sure, there is that little old lady in the congregation that looks down on everyone else while she gossips about people, but that's not who I'm talking about. When I think of "stuck-up Christians" I think more about the elitist snobs that run around acting like they alone are the protectors of all things "orthodox". Now, don't get me wrong, I'm the first to promote correct doctrine; so much so that some people have labeled me a "heretic hunter". But I'm not even talking about people who attempt to follow correct doctrine and urge others to follow right doctrine.

A "Stuck-up Christian" is someone who might start a website called something like "What Color is the Sky in Their World?" and do podcasts against what they might call "Hillbilly Theology". They ooze condescension and giggle over their own pithy words.

Now, maybe they don't mean to be stuck-up. Maybe they don't realize just how arrogant they come off with the name of their websites and the topics of their podcasts and the tone of their voices. I want to give that possibility. But could they recognize and even acknowledge this arrogance if they were shown it?

In a world so neutered, so sissified by political correctness; so "tolerant" of the most debase thoughts and activities where does a person go to find strength against such impotence?

Modern Christianity is often portrayed as a refuge for people barely able to function in life. It is considered the refuge for the weak and dysfunctional.

So, where can a person go to find strength, boldness, and confidence? Christianity used to provide this. It used to be a religion that made people "more than conquerors" in Christ. It used to be a religion that built strong insides and outsides; that is, it transformed the hearts of men and men of hearts into capable, functional, and even superior individuals who built cities and universities, and entire cultures.

With the recent website blackout protest of the proposed SOPA/PIPA bills (see here) I wanted to visit the idea of freedom of thought. Sometimes we hear people claiming their supposed United States Constitutional "right to free expression". But in reality the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights speak of "free expression". The actual phrase is: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. - Bill of Rights 1

Perhaps we would argue that expression is speech, yet expression is more vaguely defined. Speech has been defined as verbal or written expression but expression itself could be as broadly defined as ensuring and protecting a person's "right" to express themselves by burning the American flag or submerging a crucifix in a glass of urine (see ref1, ref2).

With the broadened term, "freedom of expression" there is more room for subjectivity. What is considered expression? Can it go too far? And if so, who decides what is too far?

It is often common today to say things like "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" when you have somehow wronged a person in some way. But these phrases don't carry the sense of remorse the phrase; "Forgive me" carries. To say "I'm sorry" could mean many things, such as; "I'm sorry I got caught" or "I'm sorry you don't like it but...". Similarly, the word apology actually means "to make a defense", such as in the concept of Christian Apologetics. Someone who is truly remorseful for what they have done doesn't defend themselves.

Look, just ask your spouse which they'd rather hear when you have wrong them and you'll see what I mean.

Well here is my obligatory New Year's message. Typically, such a message is supposed to be full of platitudes and overly optimistic ideas. We're supposed to talk about the blessings of the previous year and the hope for the dawning.

But are we naive to think the new year will be any different than the previous if we do nothing different? This is where we are usually urged to make a resolution; a resolution to do or not do something in the new year.

In my ongoing study of epistemology -- how we know what we know -- I was reading some comments by a "Clarkian" (a person who follows Gordon Clark's epistemological model), who was arguing that a phrase such as "the sky is blue" is an axiom that can neither be proven or disproved. He argues against the classic Christian epistemology which starts with "God is", or "God exists" hence the entire point of the "I AM THAT I AM" statement from God when Moses asked Him his name in Ex 3:14.

Couple this with Romans 1:20 which says:

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse..."

We see that God is making the case that He is the AXIOM.

Time for another update of random thoughts. First, my daughter will be graduating High school within a few days -- mid-term. Her mother and I are so proud of her. She has always been an A-B student. She will be going on to college after about a month off.

There is a local submarine sandwich shop my workmates and I like to frequent. It is ran by Egyptians -- Coptic Christian Egyptians. I usually like to have short discussions with them about the situations in Egypt. When the so-called "Arab Spring" began in the Middle East we talked about the changes in Egypt. They were hopeful. But now it seems Egypt, like many of these Muslim countries will become more radically Islamic. However, we spoke how we believe that there is a large segment of the "revolutionaries" that wanted true liberty and will become upset when it obviously doesn't come under Islamic rule.

Every year around Christmas time, some Christians grapple with how or if to celebrate Christmas. Typically the initial argument against Christmas by Christians is that it is not a Christian holiday but rather is a pagan holiday. Further, Protestant Christians may oppose the Roman Catholic connection to "Mass" as in "Christ's mass".

However, whatever Christmas was originally, many people; including non-Christians see the holiday as a specifically Christian holiday. So much so, that there is often a hesitancy for public institutions to overtly connect to the holiday, often using the phrase "Happy Holiday" rather than "Merry Christmas". Interestingly enough, etymologically; these institutions don't really get away from the religious overtone by using the phrase Happy Holiday because the word "Holiday" comes from the phrase Holy Day (ref).

In the debate between Arminianistic (human free-will) and Calvinistic (God's control) theology, each has its proof-texts. Each claims to be using Scripture alone to prove its position. Perhaps one way to resolve the dispute, so you'd think would be to simply put all the proof-texts side by side. Yet, as often as this has been done, the dispute continues. It could be because the proof-texts are presented as negating factors in an attempt to negate or cancel out another proof-text.

The approach of proof-texting does more damage than good, since to the non or weak Christian observer, it may appear Scripture is highly contradictory.

After the Harold Camping debacle in 2011 where "pastor" Harold Camping predicted the end of the world -- which obviously failed to come true -- people should be asking what should they do when pastors go bad.

Or how about a local pastor who may have started out on the straight and narrow but at some point either embraces some radical individualistic view or begins supporting some blatant heresy.

Further, what if an entire ministry goes bad? What should the "lowly" Christian do? Often, we're told we just should move on. Vote with our feet per se.

In the Bible, there are very few examples of elders/pastors who go bad and eventually return to the Faith. Most examples are of elders/pastors going bad and never again returning to the Faith. The Bible has an of example of warnings of how to avoid installing a bad pastor. (1 Tim 3:1-7)