Since leaving the traditional institutional expression of “church” about six years ago, there have been so many changes in my thinking and perspective. Things that used to be so important to me ceased to seem that important. And other things that seemed to be so trivial or unimportant before suddenly took on new meaning.

Easter is one of those things that ceased seeming to be so important. No, I do not mean that the resurrection of Jesus ceased to have any importance for me! But what I mean is that the single day of celebrating that changed dramatically for me.

When I was working in the institution, Easter was one of the biggest days of the year work-wise. It usually involved quite a bit of musical preparation (perhaps a cantata, or just extra-big congregational music). We would celebrate the resurrection and all that it meant to us like we would never have the chance to do so again.  At least we wouldn’t really get that chance for another year…

So what has changed for me? The resurrection now seems significant to me every day of the year. It’s no longer something to be singled out one day a year, but rather is a life-changing, life-altering, life-encompassing thing for me now.

For me, the resurrection “tops off” the work that was done on the cross. Jesus gave his life to ransom us from the power of sin and death. And because of his sacrifice in this regard, the Father rewarded him by bringing him back to life after he had done the work necessary to purchase us back from the powers of darkness.

So, the resurrection is important to me because it means death is not the end of the story. As Paul wrote, and I paraphrase here, since Jesus was resurrected, we have hope for life beyond the grave as well.

Today, I was aware that many churches were putting their all into celebrating the resurrection. And I think they should. I just think it shouldn’t be a one-day-a-year event. As for me, it was pretty much just another day. Another day of living in gratitude for the resurrection of Jesus. Just like every other day.

Until next time,

steve

The other day on Twitter, someone decided to unfollow me (and actually blocked me) because I challenged them on the need to address concerns with integrity and truthfulness.  They seemed, unfortunately, to be more content to play into the fear and paranoia that comes from misrepresenting the facts about pending legislation.

Here’s what concerns me: Christians should be the ones demonstrating peace, no matter what the circumstances are.  And Christians should be the ones leading the way to finding out truth.  Even our own holy book says, “Come let us reason together”, yet we throw reason out and instead argue on hyperbole and exaggeration.

The newest controversy surrounds a bill in Congress (H.R. 20) right now that is referred to as the “Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act”.  The way this act is described in the emails that are racing around the country, the bill (if it became law) would mandate a test of competency be given to all mothers when they give birth. If the mother is deemed to be “incompetent”, they will not be allowed to take their baby home from the hospital.

Sound insane? I thought so, too.  Yet, according to this post, that’s exactly what the bill is alleged to say.  And my guess is that many are just taking that information and running with it.

But did you know that you can actually read the text of the bills that are being debated in Congress?

OK, I’ve spent some time reading the bill (if you all don’t know, you can go to http://www.opencongress.org and look up any bill, see its status, read its text, etc.  Here’s a link to the bill in question.)  I’ve also examined the information on the dailypaul.com link that I mentioned above (which, by the way, is a website INSPIRED by Ron Paul, but is NOT Ron Paul — if that matters to anyone. I found it a bit misleading).

I have a couple of thoughts, but first a couple of disclaimers.

Dislaimer #1: I’m extremely conservative, and am very opposed to government intrusion.  My political views are probably close to that of the Libertarians. I voted for Ron Paul (as a write-in) in the last presidential election.

Disclaimer #2: My comments are not meant to defend this legislation (which I oppose), but rather to provide some different insight into WHY we should oppose it.

Disclaimer #3: These are just my non-expert opinions, and I’m very open to differing views or different reasoning as mine here.  My desire, however, is to focus on FACTS and not allow ourselves to a) get caught up in hype, or b) simply take someone else’s word for what we think about something.

With those disclaimers in place, allow me to offer my insight here:

1. Having read the entirety of this bill (fortunately, it is not a lengthy one like the stimulus package was!!), I do not see any indication that the claims on dailypaul.com are correct that there is a test given that will cause them not to allow you to take your child home with you if you fail.  The exact quote on dailypaul.com says, “The Mother’s Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.”  This is simply nowhere to be found in the bill!

2. The focus of the bill is research regarding postpartum depression.  Now, I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about PPD (as to its legitimacy, or not) because I simply don’t have enough information, and certainly no experience (!) in this area.  However, in an effort to look at the facts of the bill and not 3rd party statements like dailypaul.com, it must be acknowledged that this bill is geared toward research and resource, not “determin[ing] if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home….”

3. Does this mean that new mothers might have to be “educated” at the hospital about PPD?  It does appear to be quite possible.  But does it have anything to do with not allowing mothers to take their children home after birth?  Again, I find absolutely no basis for this claim.

Now, having said that, if you’re still reading, I would like to share why I DO oppose this bill, and give my reasons for concern:

1. Section 101.a.4 concerns me greatly.  It states that the research appropriated by this bill would include “[c]linical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.”  The reason this bothers me is that there have been uncovered some situations in our nation’s past (and present) where studies are performed on subjects WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.  So, this area does pose some grave concern.  I would see the possibility here for new mothers to be given medication in the hospital as part of this research about which the new mother neither knows or understands, nor to which she gives consent.

2. Section 330G-1.b.2 has similar concerning language: “Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.”  My concerns raised in #1 above apply here, too.

3. Section 330G-1.b.4.B.ii also states that there should be an effort “ensuring that training programs regarding such education are carried out at the health facility.”  This does sound to me like it would be possible for a mother to have to stay at the health facility during whatever training might take place before being able to return home with their new infant.  That concerns me, as well.

So, having said all that, I think there are several reasons to oppose this legislation, or at least to express concern about it.  However, I am concerned that there seems to be a trend in our conservative circles to misrepresent the actual facts and promote a culture of fear.

For those of you who are believers in Christ, as am I, we have nothing to fear!  There is nothing our government can do that 1) is outside the hands of our Father, or 2) that can do anything to us of eternal consequence.  Let us not fear!

I would encourage each of you to actively pursue information about these topics when you hear these alarming alerts sounded.  But in the process, make sure that you don’t get caught up in the fear and hype surrounding certain topics.  There is a good chance that the alarms being sounded by many are misdirected and misguided.

Is there reason for concern in this bill?  Yes, I believe I have made that clear in my analysis above.  But I do not believe that the fear that is circulating and perpetuated by sites such as dailypaul.com is rooted in reality.  It simply makes us appear “ignorant” to anyone with a different viewpoint because we look like we don’t know what we’re talking about.  Let us fight these battles with integrity, truthfulness, and — above all — love, in the spirit of Christ!

Until next time,

steve

This week, we obviously held a very important election here in the United States. And I noticed something leading up to the election, and it became very obvious as the election results came in Tuesday night.

I have a Facebook account (look me up on there if you’re not already my Facebook friend), and my friends list is very, very diverse. I have some of my blog readers, some “in real life” friends, high school classmates, college classmates, co-workers from the theatre where I have been working these past few months, high school kids whom I accompanied this summer at a music camp — all different types of people. Some very liberal, some very conservative. Some Christian, some not. Some straight, some gay. Some old, some young. Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, if you’re not familiar with Facebook, there’s this little thing on Facebook called “status” where you can say what you’re doing at the moment, what you’re feeling, or whatever you want to put in there.

And so, election night, I was logged into Facebook, and I was following the status changes of all of my Facebook friends. And I noticed a very disturbing trend.

I could have divided my friends into two groups that night. One group was jubilant. “YES, WE DID!!!” read some statuses (stati?). “Change is coming!” read others. “I am sooo happy,” read still more.

And then, there were the evangelical Christians and more conservative types in the other group. “I’m feeling very scared.” “I’m scared, but I know God’s still in control.” “I’m worried about our country.”

Now, would I expect everyone to be happy about the election results? Of course not. Millions voted for John McCain.

But fear? Acting like the world was about to go to hell? The funny thing is, I seem to recall very similar comments from friends and family back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as President.

Seriously, Christianity is supposed to be about hope. About life. About victory. About peace. And we’re going to let the results of a Presidential election override all of that??

I just don’t get it. What are you afraid of?

Until next time,
steve

Perhaps I’ll post more thoughts on the topic in a fuller treatment later on, but for now I’m just curious and need to ask the burning questions. So here goes:

Is there anyone who is willing to say that they are pro-life in every situation, without exception? I have heard many references to the following exceptions to what I would consider to be a truly pro-life position:

• An exception in the discussion about abortion is almost always stated (very matter-of-factly, I might add) for “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”. Are there people who are anti-abortion who do not hold to these exceptions? And my question for those of you who do hold to those exceptions: Why?
• The idea of “pro-life” to me goes beyond the abortion debate, although it is often seemingly limited to that. In light of that, I would say that many people who call themselves “pro-life” are pro-death penalty. So this seems to be another exception. Pro-life except the lives of certain criminals.
• Yet another area that seems to be a large exception is in the area of military action. From a political standpoint, it seems that the ones most opposed to abortion because they are “pro-life” are also “pro-war” in many cases. So an exception seems to be made for killing one’s enemies.

I’m not trying to start a huge debate, but I am very curious. If you hold to any/all of the exceptions I’ve noted, how do you reconcile that with a pro-life position?

Sorry for the heavy topic, but this has been on my mind for several years and I’ve never had the courage to really ask the question of anyone. Now that it’s fresh on my mind again, I thought I’d take the chance here.

Just to let you know, I was brought up believing every one of those exceptions. It’s been a way of life for me for my whole life. But I’m questioning now.

Scott’s a good online friend, and I appreciate the engagement with him anytime it presents itself. We differ on some interpretations of scripture (who doesn’t?!), but I never feel like Scott is questioning our fellowship as brothers. For that, I am very appreciative. (And Scott, we need to hit up Starbucks in Winston together sometime soon, bro. I’d love to chat about stuff in person with you.)

So anyway, Scott responded on his blog about miracles. You can read the post, simply called “Miracles”, here.

I started to respond on Scott’s blog, but as often happens with me, my comment became quite lengthy, and I decided to put it here as a post instead of taking up Scott’s bandwidth with it.

Scott mentioned a great statement of Jesus as part of the discussion, and then offered his commentary:

Christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.” Does that mean that next week I can raise someone from the dead? No, I don’t think so. What I think it means is that this week I can talk to people about my faith. It means that I can love the people in my community sacrificially. What does he mean by “greater works”? Frankly, I don’t know. I think that greater might mean greater in scope. We have the opportunity to take the message of God’s love into places unheard of in Jesus’ time. I’m more than willing to admit that I could be wrong though. If you are hardcore one way or the other I’d be curious as to know why.

In response to some of the things that were said in the post, I’d like to address the “greater things” part first. I don’t necessarily consider myself “hard core one way or the other” on what the “greater things” are, but I’ll try to give my thoughts.

While I have no trouble saying that the “greater things” are not explicitly stated (and therefore subject to some interpretation at least), we still need to wrestle with the fact that Jesus didn’t just say we would do “greater things”. He first said that we would do the same things he was doing. Regardless of what the “greater things” might be, are we doing the same things that Jesus did?

Take a look at the examples in the book of Acts. The disciples, in fact, did do the same things Jesus was doing. They healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. Furthermore, when Paul talks about spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians, he includes healing and miracles as two gifts that the Spirit gives to the body.

I’m not as troubled by the argument from silence on the cessationist side as I am the inability to adequately explain away the stuff that’s not silent. And “troubled” is not actually a good word. It just doesn’t make sense to me, I guess.

How did Jesus heal people? And how did his disciples heal people?

1. The people receiving the miracle believed it was possible, and
2. The person facilitating the miracle (or at times, someone on their behalf) believed it was possible. That seems to be an incredibly common factor throughout. Enough of a factor that I don’t think we can dismiss it too easily.

Scott also said:

I don’t think that we’re seeing fewer miracles today because of the state of faith in our world. Miracles are by definition rare things.

If scripture draws a strong parallel between the state of faith (either in individuals or in a region) and miracles (and I believe it does), should that not be taken into consideration? On what basis, then, do you think that doesn’t apply? Furthermore, when the kingdom was proclaimed by Jesus, were they really “rare” things? Does scripture itself define miracles as “rare”?

So to have this thing occupy a major portion of your theology and to go around in circles looking for support one way or another is indeed wasting cycles, if that’s all you’re doing.

I hope you can understand at this point that it’s not occupying “a major portion” of my theology, but rather I’m trying to assess what place it should. So I don’t see it as wasting cycles at all.

My point and repeated question basically come down to this: We see Jesus doing miracles as part of his gospel proclamation. Jesus tells us that those who believe in him will do the same things he did, and even greater things. The disciples go on to do the same things Jesus did, and even greater things (in terms of scope, for certain). So, if we are not to expect to do the same things, on what basis do we draw that conclusion?

Here’s a poor analogy: There is a light switch that I always use to turn on our dining room light. If I flip the switch one day and the light doesn’t come on, I can either conclude that the switch no longer is intended to operate that light, or I can conclude that something is not working properly and needs to be corrected for the switch to operate the light again. In a very basic way, the cessationist position seems to be saying that the switch is no longer intended to operate the light, whereas the continualist position is saying that the intent is still there, but something is not working properly.

Thoughts from Scott or anyone else?

Until next time,

steve

This post started as a response on a post over at The Pursuit, but I decided to just write it here instead. In one of Lew’s “Question of the Week” posts, he asked:

Why do the things that cause us to separate ourselves by denomination have little to do with what God’s Word tells us to separate ourselves from?

Recently, in response to that, a commenter wrote:

…the union of people who have conflicting ideas is really no unity at all.

I think this is 1) a red herring, and 2) a false dichotomy, and 3) an excuse for the utter lack of attempts at unity in the body of Christ.

There can be a lot of “conflicting ideas” in a unified group. The unity is not always a simple function of unity in thought (or better yet, a unity in knowledge), but rather a unity in identification.

I find my identity in Christ. Who I am is found in Christ. Anyone else who finds their identity in Christ is my brother, and I should be able to be unified with them without any problem.

What if we disagree on methods of evangelism? So what?

What if we disagree on the use of certain spiritual gifts? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God created the heavens and the earth? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly what/when the millenial kingdom of Christ is? So what?

What if we disagree on exactly how God has “chosen” us? So what??

That need not divide us. Unless we twist any of those things, or a million other “issues” like them, into issues of true fellowship, they are not reasons for division. And if those things divide us, we should ask ourselves: From what do we get our identity?

For example, take a look at some of the leaders of large denominations who say that they can’t “cooperate” in the work of the Gospel with those who have not been baptized by someone in their denomination. Are they really seeking unity? In my opinion, no. They are seeking to defend their particular belief system as the only true and correct belief system.

That is not of Christ. It never has been, and never will be. And it is not those outside of that denomination who are the heretics. It is the one causing division who is the heretic.

Let’s quit coming up with excuses for our division and start really accepting and loving those who confess Christ, and seeking unity with them.

Conflicting ideas? Sure. Ability to fellowship and work together despite those differences? Absolutely — because it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one Spirit that unites us.

Until next time,

steve

To my dear brothers who are involved in the institutional church, please don’t read this so much as an “institutional vs. simple” dichotomy. But prayerfully weigh Phil’s words here and see what points of agreement might be had. Of course, dissenting opinions are welcome in the comments following this post, if one feels it necessary.

Without further ado, then, in my “Wish I Had Written This!” category comes this profound comment from (unwitting) guest blogger Phil on the recent “How (Not) to Judge Someone’s Orthodoxy” post:

Looking back at this whole discussion, I come back to this basic question–What is Christianity? Is it
(a) a set of activities in a sacred place on Sunday morning, with a list of tenets to be subscribed to as a condition of participation, coupled with rules for behavior, enforced by the official leadership

or

(b) a way of living, every day, 24/7, in relationship with Jesus Himself, and with others who also are in relationship with Him.

Going through the words of Jesus Himself in the Gospels, I cannot find anything that leads to (a); in fact, he often rebuked the leaders of the (a) system of the day. I grew up in churches, have been in churches all my life, and my conclusion now is that in most situations, the more of (a) you have, the less you have of (b); in fact, (a) tends to replace and eliminate (b)!

How did “Abide in me” come to mean “Be at the church building every time the doors are open”?

If you want to improve your relationship with someone, say your wife, do you go off to an auditorium and sit while someone who claims to know her better than you do lectures for half an hour? Or would the time be better spent going somewhere alone with your wife and conversing with her for half an hour? Which really builds the relationship with her?

I’m afraid most humans are too lazy for their own good. We’d rather have a list of rules to keep than try to walk in the Spirit. We want a doctrinal statement to assent to rather than trying to learn to hear His voice ourselves. The Hebrews started it at Mt. Sinai–they wanted Moses to hear God for them.

And for those who would say “It’s some of each, both (a) and (b)” my question is How can it be both, when (a) eliminates (b)? I think, and I suspect [frequent commenter] ded would agree (based on what he’s written here), that they are two different things, coming from two different sources. If God meant it to be a symbiosis, it would be a stable symbiosis, not constantly drifting in one direction.

To look at it another way: What has been the “fruit” of (a) in this country? Do we have a vibrant church that is transforming its culture? Are non-believers coming to Christ in droves? Are believers “turning the world upside down”?

Or is the picture more like this: “Our bookshelves are full of Christian books and videos. We have churches on every major street, more staff workers than ever before, large Sunday school departments, cell systems, mega- and meta-church seminars. We have Christian bumper stickers, political action groups, huge parachurch ministries–and in the midst of it all, we have lost every major city in North America.” Back in 1999, Wolfgang Simson included that quote from Ted Haggard in his book “Houses that Change the World”.

Maybe we do need to lay aside everything that’s been written since and go back to the New Testament for our original instructions.

Way to go, Phil! And a hearty “amen” to that.

Until next time,

steve

When the news about Ted Haggard’s resignation amidst confessions of “sexual immorality” broke last year, I opted not to blog about it in specifics. (I can’t even remember now if I wrote anything at all about it.) My choice to not use his name or specifics was for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was that I didn’t want a bunch of Google traffic based on his name.

I also wanted to be extremely reserved in passing judgment. Not that I didn’t think that what he admitted to was pretty serious. And not that I didn’t think that the way he handled it was extremely inappropriate for a man of his position.

In the midst of the fallout from that scandal (what a cliché that is, eh?), I had concerns about the way his former church handled it, as well. I thought about writing some posts about that and comparing it to some of my own personal experiences with how churches often deal (or don’t deal, as the case may be) with sin amongst its leaders.

Today, however, I find myself not feeling so reserved. And I find myself torn between feelings of tremendous sorrow and harsh anger. I’m trying to err on the side of sorrow here, but it’s difficult.

So, what was the news that came out today? Well, it appears from this news story on Yahoo (HT: Kansas Bob) that Mr. Haggard is asking for support for the next two years because he doesn’t think that he and his wife have “adequate earning power” and won’t for at least two years.

But here’s the rub: Mr. Haggard reportedly received a severance package which included $138,000 in salary, he made $110,000 + an $85,000 bonus (?!?!) last year prior to resigning, he continues to collect royalties on his books (although I imagine the market for them has declined a bit), and lives in a close-to-3/4 of a million dollar home, which is on the market.

So, Mr. Haggard apparently thinks that he needs people to support him, despite all of that. Why? I can’t think of any good reason, either logically or scripturally, why Mr. Haggard should be entitled to financial support from others.

I will still refrain from passing judgment in a strict sense, but I think that perhaps Mr. Haggard got a little too comfortable asking people for money, expecting financial support to an extreme level, and living off the generous gifts of others who quite likely have a much lower standard of living than he.

Lord have mercy.

I’ll just leave it at that.

Until next time,

steve

Sometimes that results in a very unpopular view. There are certain things that are “fashionable” for Christians to hold to here in America. Speaking out against those things is often misconstrued as speaking out against Christianity itself. Or, at best, one is viewed as a political liberal, and therefore not a good Christian.

The “War on Terror” is one such issue. It has the ability to polarize people so quickly. And while I don’t seek to make a case for or against the current military action, I do think it is high time that those of us who are citizens of the Kingdom of God consider the tightrope that we must walk in balancing our American citizenship with our Heavenly citizenship.

Recently, someone sent me one of those ubiquitous “forwards” in email. You know exactly the type of thing I’m talking about. The type that ends with “If you believe this, send it on to everyone you know.” The email was entitled “Could Not Be Said Better”, and is quoted here only in part:

Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.

“Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania ? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?

And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was “desecrated” when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?…Well, I don’t. I don’t care at all.

I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don’t care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don’t care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed “special” food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being “mishandled,” you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don’t care.

And of course, the email finished with these “noble” statements:

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it’ll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don’t agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don’t complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country!

…Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ
2. The American G. I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET BOTH OF THEM. AMEN

Now, I realize that these types of sentiments are very popular. However, after giving it a lot of thought and prayer, I composed a reply to person who had sent it on to me. I didn’t touch on the idea that I found equating the death of an American G.I. with the death of Jesus quite offensive. But at any rate, here was the reply I sent to my friend:

I pray that you will receive them in the spirit in which they are intended. Having said that, feel free to test my words yourself and accept or reject them as you feel led by the Spirit of God.

Since 9/11, it has become increasingly difficult to see our Christianity as anything but enmeshed in our American citizenship. In other words, our patriotism and feelings of support for our country have blurred the lines between our citizenship in the USA and our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven.

One very unfortunate side effect of this is that the War on Terror (among other things) has become a “religious war”, as evidenced by the email you forwarded below.

I can only assume, based on the closing remarks in the email, that you forwarded it on because you agree with the contents of it. And it is those contents to which I am responding.

It is very easy to get passionate about our country. It is very easy to see this war as something that is not only necessary, but right. And overall, the point of my response is not to question that. However, I think it is vitally important that we who claim the name of Christ are willing to evaluate our thoughts and feelings alongside the teachings of the very Christ whose name we bear.

Jesus spoke about how we should view our enemies. And what He spoke was pretty direct. He said that we should love those who hate us. Consider this passage (Matthew 5:38-48):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Many of the statements included in the email you forwarded are in direct opposition to these words of Jesus. Would you agree?

“I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in….”
“I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Bible….”
“I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry….”

I think you can see my point. The sentiments expressed in these statements that I’ve referenced are of the nature of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth”. This is starkly contrasted by the words of Jesus. If I could paraphrase the words of Jesus a tad, “if you only care about those who first care about you, what reward do you have?”

Give it some thought. I’d be open to any disagreement or discussion that you have regarding this. I know the forwarded email said to just delete it if I disagreed, but I feel like my relationship to you as a brother in Christ calls for something different.

I sincerely hope and pray that my words here are not offensive to you. And I deeply regret that my first “personal” email to you in several years is to take issue with a forwarded email that you have sent on.

May God bless you, and may His Spirit allow whatever truth may be in my words here to be seen, and the grace to identify and correct whatever I may have spoken in error.

“Finally…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.”

steve