Andrew.Sterling.Hanenkamp.com

Life sucks. Reading my previous few rants, one might get the impression that I’m ticked off, gloomy, and upset. You might wonder if I’m depressed or sad that “my side” lost the election or angry that people voted for someone I think is the absolute wrong move. You’d be wrong. I may have strong feelings and opinions on these other subjects, but I’m actually pretty happy. Why am I happy?

I’ve got a good job at the moment and I can say without hesitation that I’m economically better off now than I was 6 months ago, a year ago, or 5 years ago, despite the losses in my 401k/403b and other investments. Of course, I can’t be sure I’ll keep any of it. And who knows what the future holds, but I’m happy anyway.

I have an adorable almost-two-year-old to entertain me. Someday he’s going to grow up into a teenager and probably cause me a large amount of grief (who doesn’t cause their parents grief as a teenager). At some point, Lord willing, he’ll have to start making his own decisions in life and he might choose to do something I find wrong and unthinkable. But, sometimes that’s how things go. A father can only do his best and then his son gets to make his own mind up on how to live.

I have a wife who does wonderful things for me. She cooks and is very diligent at taking care of me. She works very hard and I’m proud of her many accomplishments. Sometimes we disagree and have petty fights and such, but as bad as things could get, I’m not anxious.

If my happiness in life were dependent upon my employment or even my health and ability to provide for my family, I could easily be let down by layoffs, illness, or injury. If my joy was in my wife or son or family or friends or church or coworkers or any other group I take part in, any of them may prove false and betray my trust or simply abandon me. If I were only happy when politics were going my way, during times of peace and prosperity, if the man I elected is doing wonderful things, I should probably despair and die. I have yet to be fully satisfied with the work of any politician I’ve ever voted for, let alone the ones that win that I voted against.

My happiness would go up and down if it depended on these or any number of other things, but I try to keep a certain blessed happiness and laughter close by always. Jesus Christ is the source of my joy. If you want to make me a grim person, you could by ruining all of the things above and work to destroy everything else I hold dear, but I would still hold at my core a fierce optimism because of my love for Jesus Christ and the knowledge that someday, sooner or later, I will be united physically and spiritually with my Lord-Creator. That’s a joy that cannot be taken away.

Cheers.

With three weeks to go in the election, I caught a cab early in the morning from my hotel in Pittsburgh to head to the airport after the Pittsburgh Perl Workshop. One thing I really love about Pittsburgh is their cab drivers. On this trip to PIT, I met a German immigrant who started the conversation by saying, “I just can’t wait until this election is over.” I was pretty sure he and I were going to cast opposite votes as far as the presidential election was concerned, but I agreed wholeheartedly with him on this: “I can’t wait either.”

Why did I get tired of the election? It was a number of things. The primaries started way too early. I didn’t really have a candidate to root for, just candidates to root against. Most of all, though, I don’t like the tone of the discussion that occurred. In fact, there wasn’t much discussion at all.

In this election, if you didn’t agree with the candidate someone else chose, it wasn’t because you had a different ideology or potentially legitimate concern, you were just an idiot and probably a bigot. This makes debate impossible because the only way debate happens is if you look at your opponents point of view to try and find where that view is valuable, contrast it with your own viewpoint, and then determine which is better and why. Of course, no one has time to do this all the time, but it is a good exercise to be in as much as you can if you want to continue to sharpen and strengthen your own position. When you start with the assumption that your opponent has nothing of value because he’s stupid or bigoted, you’ve cheated yourself out of the ability to determine the truth of your assertion. This latter sentiment seemed to me to be more prevalent than usual in this election.

It played itself out in a rather disturbing way when it came to the running mate of John McCain. For example, there was, early on, a popular video of Matt Damon saying that the choice of Sarah Palin was like a bad Disney movie and wondered if she really believed that dinosaurs walked around on earth 6,000 years ago. The implication is that no one but an utter moron could possibly believe such a thing. Therefore, everything she believes must be utterly moronic. This sums up my perception of the tone of criticism of her and anyone who agreed with any part of her platform.

Rather than confronting her views and saying, “She’s wrong. This is why.” The response was instead, “She’s stupid. Ignore her.” Instead of trying to figure out why she believes such things, I saw people ridiculing her northern accent. Instead of refuting her positions, people were ranting about how she pronounced the word “nuclear.” Some of these concerns were espoused by people I consider very intelligent and capable thinkers in other contexts. The majority of Palin’s ideas aren’t that controversial at all. She values family and friends. She believes in a strong work ethic. The things that are most important to nearly everyone are most important to her. The positions she holds that are debated are just a different way of viewing reality, not frank stupidity. She sees the world differently.

Similarly, “refutations” of some of my suggestions of why Obama might not be a good president were phrased using words like “ridiculous” and “puhleese.” This is language designed to suggest I was just an idiot without valuable input. They weren’t an attempt at rational discussion and debate. With this kind of response, I’m not even permitted to agree to disagree. Instead, I’m a dumb bigot hater whose trying to force my ideology on others. Yet, I don’t hate anyone. Disagreeing about which human behaviors and rights and entitlements should be granted or forbidden by government does not make me a hater anymore than having a more “open” viewpoint prevents them from being a hater.

It is so easy to just point at the other side and demagogically state, “Duh! He’s stupid.” It is not easy to look carefully, consider why that viewpoint is held, and then reply, “Well, he may be right on this point, but he’s wrong for all these other reasons.” We may disagree, but at least we’ve held a discussion. I may not be the best at this myself, but I really have tried.

For me, it came down to this in the election. Too many people have a very narrow definition of tolerance. When many say the world “tolerance” they mean, “I will tolerate your different point of view until you tell me I’m wrong. At that point you are a stupid bigot hater. Go to hell.” This is false tolerance. True tolerance is one that states instead, “I looked over your point of view and I’m not moved by your arguments. I disagree and I will fight you for the hearts and minds of others. May the best ideal win.” That’s idealistic, but that’s the world I long for.

Cheers.

I’ve tried a few times to sum up my beliefs and why I’m going to vote the way I’m going to vote, but I haven’t been able to write it as well as I want. Fortunately, the Interwebs are full of well-written articles that speak my mind. As such, I’m presenting this list of articles to explain my positions and why I will vote the way I vote.

• Foreign Policy: Is America really going to do this?
• Campaign Finance: With $605 million already, Obama asks only $10 more from each of us
• Taxes: If it redistributes like a duck …
• Economics: John McCain Warned Of Mortgage Collapse In 2005
• Abortion: Obama’s Abortion Extremism
• Special Needs: Kurt In Pittsburgh, the Palins, the McCains, and a Down-Syndrome Child
• Abortion: Trig Palin’s threat to the abortion industry
• Ideology: Pinch Yourself

That’s quite enough to convince me I’m making the correct decision.

Cheers.

Any vote for Barak Obama is a vote to free and unfettered access to abortion for any reason by any woman under any circumstances. I’ve been told by one person that this statement is “ridiculous,” but what’s ridiculous is that anyone can believe differently. I will explain and use lots of fact checking sources so you can confirm that what I’m saying is true. I’ve already made the case for abortion being homicide, so I won’t restate my position here. Today I focus on how a vote for Barak Obama is a vote to make it easier to commit this form of homicide.

First, if we only check his voting record, we find that Obama has voted for every bill he could have to increase women’s rights in abortion and against every bill that might have. He did so by voting “present” rather than “nay”, but that’s just a technicality and the official voting policy of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood rated him as 100% pro-choice. Here’s the list of things he voted against (by voting “present”):

• Voted “present” against SB 230, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
• Voted “present” against HB 1900, Parental Notice of Abortion Act
• Voted “present” against HB 562, Parental Notice of Abortion Act
• Voted “present” against SB 1093, Law to protect Liveborn children
• Voted “present” against SB 1094, Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion
• Voted “present” against SB 1095 Bill defining “born alive” defines “born-alive infant” to include infant “born alive at any stage of development.”

But don’t take my word for it, please see Obama’s voting record on abortion. You can also check Barak Obama on Abortion at OnTheIssues.org for additional information showing how this strategy of voting “present” was the official strategy of Planned Parenthood for trying to stop these bills.

Next, if we look at what he said, we find he is pro-abortion. My “ridiculous” critic stated that Obama has said that he’s not pro-abortion. However, there are a couple problems with making that statement. First, Obama does not believe that abortion is a moral issue, but an issue of women’s rights. To Obama the ability to get an abortion is required to support women’s rights. If that’s true, then he’s for women exercising their right to get an abortion. He’s pro-abortion.

If we take the view I hold, that abortion is homicide, then his position becomes even clearer. It wouldn’t matter at all whether it harmed women’s rights or not because it becomes a moral issue. You cannot be pro-choice on a moral issue. For example, if we time traveled back to 1855 and I told you that a certain Senator did not believe in slavery, but was strongly opposed to doing anything about it and had voted several times against restrictions, would you accept my statement that he was pro-choice on slavery? What if he voted to perform additional medical research using slaves and offered to greatly expand the number of slaves available for this research? What if he even wanted to make it so that those who are completely opposed to slavery had to help finance these projects with taxes and require those morally opposed to help produce these slaves? Would you still say he was pro-choice on slavery?

This is position we find Barak Obama holding. If I replaced the words “slavery” in the previous paragraph with “abortion” and “slaves” with “embryos” we would have an accurate description of Obama’s positions. (Read the next paragraphs for the evidence supporting these assertions.) This is essentially the argument being used to push the idea the idea that he is not pro-abortion.

The second problem with the argument is that he believes abortion is essential to medical research, which is also a statement of pro-abortion. If abortion is homicide, then embryonic stem-cell research which destroys the embryos is also abortive homicide. He support embryonic stem-cell research. He goes so far as to support a bill that encourages the creation of embryos and requires the destruction of these same embryos used for research. This comes under the guise of an “anti-cloning” bill, which is actually a pro-cloning research bill that forbids allowing clones to mature. (Source: Obama’s Abortion Extremism)

While he has stated on certain occasions that he disagrees with pro-lifers, but is willing to allow that disagreement to stand, he actually supports bills that would force pro-lifers to violate their conscience to provide for and even to perform abortions. He supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which would allow the government to pay for abortions in certain special cases when a woman is too poor to afford one on her own. If the act were repealed and the government were to pay for such abortions, those who are morally opposed would be required to pay for them. He also supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which removes the rights of pro-lifers to refuse to participate in abortions, i.e., a single-mother who works as a nurse at your local hospital could lose her job if she conscientiously objects to helping perform an abortion under FOCA.

I think Robert George best summed Obama’s position up when he said, “In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.”

If you’re opposed to abortion, you should look very carefully to Obama’s position on this topic and make your decision carefully. This is not the only issue important to me, but it’s an issue that is very important. It is also one that seems to be misunderstood by a great many that would stand with me on the issue, but seem to think Obama is somehow the best option on this issue. I don’t think you could be more wrong.

I listened to a debate this evening during dinner regarding whether one ought to vote for Obama or McCain. The two debaters went round and round, but neither of them mentioned what was important to my vote. I’m guessing that what is important to me is also important to them, but the bout centered around the hype of the week. What’s important? The issues.

Do you believe that the right to choose is more important than the right to life? Obama is your man. If you believe abortion is murder and is not an issue that should be linked to women’s rights, McCain is the guy. Do you believe that America should expand as quickly as possible on social policies and progressive tax policies. Obama has your vote. If you believe that government is too big and taxes shouldn’t punish achievement, McCain is your pick. If you believe the news that the Iraq war is going well and needs to be pursued to completion, you want McCain. If you believe the Iraq war is a disaster and we need to pull the troops back as soon as we can, Obama is your best bet.

These are just a small samples of the issues. The scandals, on the other hand, that are being hyped regarding Obama’s relationship to Ayers or Wright or Palin’s firing of a trooper while governor or McCain’s Keating Five scandal or Biden’s plagiarism problems will come and go. Unless some allegations come out that really make a difference as to whether or not the candidate is a legitimate option, these are just superficially colorful features of the canidates that are only used to sway the shallow voters who do not vote on ideology, but purely on popularity.

As for me, I’m voting on ideology. Though, I’m not really voting for anyone. I’m voting against the person whose ideology I disagree with most since no one on this field of candidates is terribly close to my opinions across the board, but one of them is very much further away.

Cheers.

This is not about the candidates, but about my reaction to the election process itself so far. I did not bother (deign) to watch either the Presidential or the Veep debates. However, I’ve read a lot of reactions and I think this one sums up the point of view held by Obama supporters for the opposition:

SHE PRONOUNCES IT “NUKYALAR” TOO!

Yes. That’s about as much substance as you get from that side of the aisle most of the time when referring to the Republican ticket. Pronunciation errors. Conspiracy theories. Name calling. Of course, on our side there’s “Obama-Messiah” jokes. Reuters and AP photographers really helped that particular nickname stick, though.

Now, the election is about issues to the liberals who have that reaction, I realize. They are scared that a Republican might upset the balance of judges in the Supreme Court out of favor of judicial activism, which raises the possibility that abortion (particularly partial birth abortion) stands a chance of being legislated against and not struck down. They think the folks in flyover country need to give up the guns and the religious bigotry against the gays and lesbians and blacks and women.

In the middle, we have the folks that are picking who they vote for based purely on popularity. Which do I like better? Who’s nicer? Who get’s singled out on factcheck.org less? Who is richer? Whose wife dresses nicer? Who is prettier? Those people. They mostly could care less about the issues, just about how “good” the candidate is on a purely subjective level. That’s not much different than usual, but the popularity contest is a little more charged this time since that’s what the Obama ticket rode in on during the primaries. I don’t think it’s working quite as well as it did initially.

(Btw, the popularity contest is why I loath local politics. You pretty much have to be fully involved in local politics to know anything that matters about the candidates. If you expect one side or the other to actually say anything of substance publicly, you’re insane. Most of them just give you this really vague statement about really liking Kansas and having two kids at the high school and a terrier named Butch. Name recognition is more important than anything else. Pfft!)

In the press, we have them doing what they always do: screaming at the top of their lungs, “We’re going to die!” While I would say the likelihood of that is fairly high, that still doesn’t make panicking over it an election issue.

This time around we have “new media” like never before and so what? Most of the blogs out there are also screaming the same things as the “old media”. The ones that aren’t are either screaming at the screaming blogs to stop screaming so much or screaming about how disgusted they are with the screaming blogs. This pretty much sums up American politics since around the time we put George Washington into office, so the “new media” is really just a rehash of the “old media” but at least the screaming isn’t all coming from one side anymore. Unfortunately, the side I’d like to scream rather less and hand out rope more, doesn’t very often.

On my side of aisle, we have the people (like me) trying to figure out if we even like McCain, since we never really liked him before. On the other hand, even if we don’t like a him very much, he’s a lot better than Obama on the issues that count. Placing a gun toting, Bible thumping, anti-abortionist woman with a Down’s Syndrome child, to boot, does quite a bit to help smooth over some of the worries some of us had. The fact that some folks are saying that she is a horror of horrors because she didn’t abort her special needs child has a few of us riled even. Some of us think that abortion is infanticide. We really believe that and even have medical and scientific facts to back it up, if someone cares for the morality of the issue rather than just a woman’s right to choose.

On the other side of my side of the aisle, we have the blue bloods of the party who think McCain is the best thing since sliced bread. Of course, they are stuttering and dumb-founded by the pick of Palin, but they’ll probably shrug that off while sipping martinis at the country club. Some of us can’t stand that wing of the party and lump them together with all the rich white guys over in the democratic party.

Who will win? Who knows? Ask the polls today and most say Obama, some McCain, but then again, the polls have proven to be wrong in the past, often. As Disraeli/Twain said, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Given that pollsters try to guess what “likely voter means” and shift the numbers to fit that guess, who knows?

And who cares? The fact is that if you’re putting your life’s hopes and dreams into the man that sits as CEO over the most powerful monopolistic organization in the known universe, “you are a sad, strange little man and you have my pity.” All in all, it doesn’t matter very much and in all likelihood, the winner will make some things a little better and some things a little worse. If now is a time in history where massive change happens (probably for the worse since things are truly excellent today if you compare modern America with any other culture or time in history), it will probably happen regardless of who is in charge, but if not, who would be able to predict it now anyway?

There will be upheaval in your life, there will be serene times, there will be sickness, times where the budget is tight, and times when you have a surplus, and sooner or later, you’ll die. Some time after that, no one will even care because everyone that did will also be dead. I find the reassurance at the end of Ecclesiastes (a book about these very morbid things) a good salve when I am frustrated with the insanity of all this, “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.”

Cheers.

There’s been a lot of a talk in the news lately about Sarah Palin. So much so that one might be led to believe that Sarah Palin is already President. Much of this noise is around the complete disbelief that she would be so stupid as to believe wholeheartedly in creationism and deny evolution. I find such persecution pretty ironic since science claims not to hold to dogma. I’m not so interested in politics in this post, but to show a fact: believing in spirituality or religious things is not nearly so hated as particular beliefs that violate popular dogma. Fundamentalism requires taboo beliefs on a number of subjects, which I want to contrast with the more popular liberal alternatives.

Fundamental Christianity finds it’s core in unswerving belief in the Bible as the sole unbiased source of truth. This belief finds it’s roots in early church policy as well as in the beliefs of the Reformers. There are many, many ways to deviate from these fundamentals and all of them find their source in a desire to compromise belief in the Bible as the source of truth with another source. In both cases I examine here, I refer to the compromise as “liberalism” (this is theological liberalism, not to be confused with the political term).

Compromise with Science

This is one of the places fundamentalism is most frequently left behind by otherwise fundamental Christians. For the most part, Christianity and science do not intersect. The Bible says very little about physics, astronomy, biology, meteorology, geology, or anything else scientific. The Bible makes no claim on being a scientific text, particularly since science in it’s modern form did not exist when any part of it was written. On most scientific subjects a fundamentalist and liberal will agree because there’s really no reason not to agree. The Earth revolves around the Sun and rainbows are caused when light is refracted through a prism. What is there to disagree about? These are certainly props in the Bible, but they are not explained formally as being this way or that way. They just are.

However, there is a significant difference between the fundamentalist and the liberal when it comes to a couple key points: creation and the flood. I’ll focus just on creation. The Bible states that the universe was created in a period of six days (not seven!). Light and dark were created on the first, then water and clouds on the second, land and plants on the third, the sun and moon and stars on the fourth, the fish and birds on the fifth day, and finally land animals and humans on the sixth day. (Genesis 1) The fundamentalist accepts the Bible’s statement at face value. There’s no need to dispute what the Bible says.

Now, the liberal has a problem. If the creation story is true, why does science say otherwise? The liberal desire is to harmonize popular theories with the statement of Scripture. He must first understand the universe in the context of modern science and then interpret scripture within that framework. This compromises Scripture by forcing upon it a point of view rather than trying to understand the world from its point of view.

As far as the fundamentalist is concerned, this is a completely foolish way of trying to understand the universe. Modern science is based upon a non-Christian philosophy that either rejects God or ignores Him. There’s nothing to harmonize since these are contradictory points of view. Therefore, any attempt to Christianize evolution or uniformitarianism or other theories and frameworks built within this paradigm don’t make sense to the fundamentalist (nor to the scientist, for that matter).

This is not to say that the fundamentalist is not interested in understanding origins of the universe on a formal level, but that he does not find the observed facts of earth and the universe in contradiction with Scripture. He works to understand these observations within the context of Scripture rather than the other way around. For example, stars are billions of light years away, so how can we see them if the earth is not billions of years old? The fundamentalist may propose the “hypothesis” that God brought the light here at creation or that the speed of light hasn’t always been constant. Such “hypotheses” aren’t unscientific to suppose, at least not when compared to the alternative. The common scientific “hypothesis” is that the speed of light has remained mostly constant for the past few billion years, but how do you propose to test that? You cannot. It is an assumption, which is not really a hypothesis (which is why I put “hypothesis” in quotes here), but scientists rarely admit to making these kinds of dogmatic assumptions.

Compromise with the Position of Women

This is the second great compromise of our age. There has been a great deal of effort to level the playing field between men and women. Some of this work has been good and positive, some of it has not. Interestingly, I make that statement and I am confident that both fundamentalists and liberals will agree with it. Yet each will disagree with the other on which aspects of this work have been good versus which have not been good.

Fundamental Christianity reads passages on relations between men and women and accept them at face value. For example, the Bible states, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” (Ephesians 5:22-24) This passage continues in verses 25-28, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.”

This position, however, is strongly rejected by many non-Christians. This rejection is not a modern belief. In fact, the first book of the Bible mentions this very rejection in Genesis 3:16, “You desire shall be [against] your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Women have long desired the overlordship of men and men have long abused the overlordship they hold simply by being physically stronger. The modern western reaction to this is to either seek to place women in authority over men or an attempt to toss away the authority altogether. The latter is probably the more popular view, but militant feminism certainly strains toward the former.

In any case, the liberal does not like to apply the word “submission” to women under any circumstances. Therefore, a liberal tries to find any way possible to make it so that this scripture can be ignored or explained away. The most common mechanism among liberals in my experience is to explain scriptures they don’t agree with by saying such things were only meant in a First Century culture, which wasn’t as enlightened as we are today. But whatever the tool, the result is the same. The liberal must somehow compromise Christianity with the popular views to be comfortable.

In the meantime, the fundamentalist Christian is simply baffled. If one has all the graces of Christ, what need have we to compromise the plain wording of the Bible? A fundamentalist understands that submission does not imply diminishing a person, that submission is commanded of each Christian to other Christians. He understands that loving as Christ loves the church is a loaded command. Does Christ beat anyone into submission? Does Christ force anyone to do anything? Nope. This kind of headship is not that stupid and does not imply that those who are led are somehow powerless or less equal as humans.

Fundamental Christians, both men and women, read these passages and understand them at face value. Men have a role as the head of the marriage and family. That role involves straining toward perfection and helping his wife do the same. A wife is to strain towards perfection as well and help her husband. There’s nothing here that asserts that men are more equal than women, just that men and women both have a certain, God-given place in a well-ordered Christian family.

Trying to compromise that position doesn’t make sense in a Biblical context or to that of any secular person. You end up with a Christianity that contradicts itself and holds to no firm standard but which way the winds of doctrine blow today.

The Point

It is my belief that the only kind of Christianity that makes sense is fundamentalism. If you want to believe science over Christianity, then do so. If you simply want to be agnostic and uncommitted, fine. If you want to believe in Zen Buddhism or something else, I won’t attempt to stop you. The Bible fully supports your right to choose whatever way to hell you want. I’m not offended if you reject God, I did so for years myself. I have family, friends, colleagues, and coworkers that reject God and I feel no more or less general affection for them than the same folks that love Jesus Christ. They remain my family, friends, colleagues, and coworkers and I love them even if I cannot relate to them as brothers and sisters in Christ.

However, if you want to be a Christian or claim the title, but you don’t want all of it. You want to pick and choose to throw out parts just because you can’t stomach what it says about men and women, science, homosexuality, adultery, idolatry, money, government, war, family, infanticide, or anything else, I have a problem with you. You are choosing a position for which I am frequently annoyed.

If you have been converted and saved by Christ, you are choosing to lead a childish Christianity that is impossible to justify and you will be tossed back and forth by every wind of false doctrine. (Ephesians 4:14) Maturity in Christ is defined by how much you cling to the fundamentals of Christ and his Word understood through his Spirit.

If you are not saved or are not sure of your salvation, you have chosen a gray path that might lead to Christ, but probably doesn’t. Like the parable of the seeds that fall among thorns, your belief is being crushed by an unbelieving world. (Matthew 13:22) You have taken a kernel of truth, but how can you know if it has planted and grown? Compromising your beliefs with the ways of those that don’t believe is no way to be assured that you believe anything for certain.

Cheers.

During grad school, I was working in a research lab and chatting with some of my fellow students/co-workers. I don’t remember what I was saying, but something having to do with church when one of my colleagues proudly said, “Yeah, I did the youth group thing, but I don’t do the Christian thing anymore.” He went on to give sage advice about what Christians are and how he’s outgrown them. I told him I thought he was mistaken, but left it at that if he didn’t want to pursue the topic, which he didn’t. What I wanted to tell him is, “You may have hung out with Christians and may have considered belief in God, but you were never a Christian.”

I have heard this said a few times, but have, as in this case, usually not responded to it directly. I can here. I must start by saying most emphatically that there is no such thing as a “former Christian.” Some Christians might debate this, but I think the Bible is pretty clear that once God “picks” you for salvation, He doesn’t change His mind.

How do I know? Because the Bible tells us that Christianity is something you either have or do not. It is something you have gained or not. It is like a ray in math. Christianity has an origin and a direction, but no end point. All of life’s bumps and even death is just an event along the ray, but nothing will ever terminate that ray of faith.

Evidence of Salvation

Perseverance is defined by scripture to be the evidence of salvation. Job 17:9 says, “Yet the righteous will hold to his way, And he who has clean hands will be stronger and stronger.” Proverbs 4:18, “But the path of the just is like the shining sun, That shines ever brighter unto the perfect day.” John 8:31, “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.’” Colossians 1:21-23, “And you, who were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—-if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.”

Powered by God

This perseverance is not something we provide, but God provides. If you are a child of God, you will persevere because He upholds you, not because you want to follow him. Psalm 37:24: “Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; For the Lord upholds him with His hand.” Philippians 1:6, “being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.” John 10:28, “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.” Jeremiah 32:40, “And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me.”

Lack of Endurance

Finally, the lack of salvation that lasts a life time is a sign of damnation. Christians will one day be resurrected to join with God when the universe itself is finally reborn. Those who never knew God or who courted God and did not endure will spend eternity excluded from heaven. Hebrews 6:4-6, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened [learn of God], and have tasted the heavenly gift [tried out Christianity], and have become partakers [acquainted rather than friends] of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” John 15:6, “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.” Romans 11:22, “Therefore considered the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you [true believers], goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

Good News

The good news is that it is never too late to come to Christ again. I added the additional notes regarding translation in Hebrews 6:4-6 above because that passage is often misused to say that a person that tries Christianity, but leaves, cannot come back. However, that’s not what the passage indicates at all. It says that if you learn all there is to learn about God and know his salvation is right, but then reject it as not enough, there’s nothing left to convince you and you are without hope. However, anyone who does not know God’s own saving grace still has time to take hold of it as long as you still have a breath to breathe.

All in all, there are no former Christians, but there are many who pretend to be. Once you become a believer, your faith will be preserved by the Holy Spirit and that is assurance indeed in a world that is so messed up. This isn’t a free ride, but even the worst Christian is better off than the best otherwise.

Cheers.

A great many myths are perpetrated regarding Christianity that I sometimes run into. I’d like to counter some of the more common ones.

The source for most of these myths is three-fold. First, by simply calling himself “Christian” a great many men seem to assert authority on subjects which have no relationship what being a Christian actually means (as defined by our church fathers in the New Testament). Second, those who are not Christians spread a certain amount of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) in an attempt to discredit us or simply because they don’t understand us. Third, the more subtle myths are actually held true by some believers when they have no basis in the Bible (or even other lesser authorities such as the councils and other historical writings).

These are in no particular order and I am just picking them out as I go. I may or may not add more posts to this as a series in the future.

Myth #1: Christians Hate People

This is sometimes a myth stated against all religious people. The premise I have heard stated is that because we believe in some sort of specialized, organized religion we spread hate against those that disagree with us. In reality, however, it is Christian principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution (and other documents that have since been derived from it) that protect the freedom to express beliefs other than Christianity. Christianity fully supports each individual’s right to believe anything she wants to believe.

There certainly are haters who name themselves “Christian.” There have been horrible and hateful atrocities perpetrated under the name “Christian.” That does not mean that these perversions of the truth represent the truth. A man could sit on a committee to find ways to work against domestic violence and yet still go home and beat his wife and children. That doesn’t mean that the committee itself is a bad idea.

Myth #2: Christians Must Never Judge

This myth is a little confusing because the term “judge” can be applied in two ways. It is true, that Jesus said, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1) Or in Romans 2:1 Paul says, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” The point here being that condemning others on the basis of whatever you don’t like about them is not good. This is not what Jesus called us to do.

However, the flip side is that we are supposed to judge ourselves and know right from wrong. “But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged.” (1 Corinthians 11:31) In a sense, we are required to judge the actions of ourselves and even others to make sure we do not follow after the sins of others. If we never judged, we’d believe in nothing. The hard part for every Christian is to not turn that judgment of action into a negative opinion of the actor. We are all sinners, every single one of us. We’re all equal in this way.

This returns us to Myth #1 about hate. If we hate others, we have judged them in an inappropriate way. If we’ve judged someone’s actions as being something not to follow, but still love the person, we have done right. This is something difficult for anyone to do since it is very human to distrust, suspect, and even hate someone just for being different. This kind of judgment we must make as Christians seeks to identify those differences. It is necessary. It is good. It is difficult for Christians to do the right thing in the process, which is why Jesus and Paul labor to point out how such judgments really condemn ourselves.

That’s it for tonight. Cheers.

I am occasionally frustrated with they way people treat others that disagree with them. As pet peeves go this one is one I’m bad at as well: critiquing your opponent as “idiots” and “nuts” instead of facing the disagreement. To some extent this is just a human reaction designed to relieve stress. Having to hold to a position that others disagree with is not something humans were designed to endure, so we lash out to relieve that stress. However, when you go beyond calling someone an idiot to relieve stress to believing they’re an idiot, you’ve crossed a line.

If you are a liberal, libertarian, conservative, communist, socialist, anarchist, or pacifist, you may be smart or you may be dumb. All of these points of view can be held in a way that is both intelligent and rational (or idiotic and illogical, but I’m ignoring that for the moment). If I only went that far, I could agree with relativists and say they are all correct. However, I believe relativists are idiots…er…sorry, are wrong. There’s more to holding a valid position than just applying a subjective point of view rationally. That is, the difference between these points of view is their particular subjective point of view. This point of view has two facets: (1) the objectivity of your perception and (2) the emphasis you place on that perception.

On some level, everyone believes in some amount of objective truth. There are of course people at the fringes who will disagree, but nearly everyone will agree that the sky is normally blue, clouds are normally white, and that walking in the rain will cause you to get wet. When we start moving into the abstract the details aren’t quite so easy to see anymore and we start to disagree on what is reality.

As an example, I overheard a former professor of mine (of a Women’s Studies course I took in college) discussing a dissertation or book or something with a colleague (and/or graduate student) at a coffee shop. In this conversation, she said something to the effect of (or at least I heard this paraphrase), “I just don’t understand why these Republicans and their little wives have such a thing against government interference with the family. They have to know it would be to their benefit. I am trying to figure out where their hatred of government comes from.” If she’d have turned around and asked me, I might have been able to answer the question, but that’s beside the point.

Here’s the point, do I think that she’s dumb just because she doesn’t know or possibly accept the answer I at 3 feet distance could have given her? No. She’s very smart and well educated. However, she does not understand my perception of reality because my perception in the abstract is incompatible with hers. I believe that humans are basically evil and will seek to take power for themselves for the purpose of subjecting and abusing others, eventually reaching the extreme of declaring themselves God on Earth that all others must bow down to worship. There’s some amount of evidence for holding to this belief.

I cannot claim to speak for her, but I believe I understand something of the perceptions of many who think like her (since I’ve known many of these people). These folks don’t think so much in terms of basic depravity or even the basic goodness of people. They think in terms of the social orders. People who are less fortunate deserve aid. Those who are more fortunate should render that aid. The purpose of government is to make sure that people who have the means to support aid give it to those who need it. This comes in the form of taxes and welfare (in general terms since both taxes and welfare programs come under many names and guises). Therefore, people who are in government seeking to expand these programs are good intentioned and are doing what is good for others (or at least trying). And also, people who are in government trying to shrink or eliminate these programs are seeking harm for their own personal gain. This is not on unintelligent or uneducated position to hold (certainly not the latter since it or something like it has held the majority opinion of many in education for decades).

Through this illustration we see both forms of perception difference. First, we both believe in basically different forms of reality. One sees humans as basically evil and the first need of evil is to make sure to stack the deck so that evil will hold evil in check. The other sees humans as either seeking to help each other render aid or seeking to deny that aid. These are very different ways of thinking about humans and it’s not even convenient to translate one kind of thinking to the other.

Second, we see that the emphasis is different. One emphasizes the examples of human selfishness throughout history and the other emphasizes the examples of human sacrifice. As an illustration, people from both of these sides may love the story of Robin Hood. One because Robin Hood chose to steal from the undeserving rich to give to the needy poor. The other because Robin Hood stands against a corrupt dictator who has implemented taxes that are too harsh on all. Or the more recent example of Wall-E. One likes the fact that a corrupt corporation seduced humanity into destroying themselves and the planet through rampant consumerism. The other because the solution is to get rid of a corrupt monopolistic government and return to traditional family values in order to return to and save that planet.

So before you think I’m an idiot conservative or that someone else is an idiot libertarian or socialist or whatever, pause. Don’t cheat yourself out of understanding your adversary and being fair with your own perceptions. You are not the only person on earth and your view is not the one correct view forever. You might be right and I might be wrong, but you won’t convince me and I won’t convince you if we each spend our time thinking the other is an idiot and working out from there.

Cheers.