Marketing strategies

Well, the other day I saw for the first time a gas station actually selling E85 fuel. It was priced at $2.31.xx/gallon, which was $.20 cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline. But I wonder how many people realize that, at those prices, they're actually paying more for their fuel with this stuff?

Ethanol has about 75% of the energy content of gasoline (depending on the source you use; mine is the EPA), so a blended mix of 15/85 gas/ethanol has about 78% of the energy content of gasoline. If this translates directly into 78% of the fuel economy, then users will be paying roughly 8% MORE for fuel in the form of E85.

Is it really worth it? No, but all of the global warming freaks are making the public think it is. I'm starting to wonder if oil companies are behind global warming in a totally different way....

Are we wandering away?

I'm becoming increasingly concerned that the Christians, as a whole, are becoming more and more Deist in their beliefs, and it concerns me. I know many people who would gladly rationalize away events in their lives saying the the Lord can do anything He wants, and that no correlation exists between the events in our lives and our pursuit of Him. He can do anything He wants, but because of His nature, He must also do everything He says He will. This includes working in our lives, leading us, guiding us to places He wants us to be. This includes answering prayers (as long as they're not in direct opposition to His will), especially when we pray incessantly for something. This includes caring for us here and now, and comforting us when the enemy opposes us. This includes giving us wisdom (abundantly) about the why's and how's of directions we're taking or plans He has for us.

But the first step in all of this is believing that He will do all of that. Jesus could not work in towns because of their unbelief. And I believe that God's work in our lives depends on the extent to which we believe and trust that He will is actively working in them, and doing so for our good.

So, I'll end this with a few questions. I've read one blog recently where the author stated outright his belief that we're all on our own.How many of you out there believe that God is "hands off" in our times? How many of you believe that? And why? And if you were showed that the Bible says contrary, would you believe it?

clarification....

I currently have two blogs. This one is, and has always been, intended to be pretty much free-form; a place to postulate or vent about the vast array of mind-boggling things (whether good or bad) that I run across in my wanderings. My other one (http://aliens-and-strangers.blogspot.com/index.html) is intended to be focused pretty much only on theology and other matters of faith. Please visit it for more thought-provoking discussions in these areas...

No regrets

Something is being lost in today's churches. One of my cousins made a statement once that she "tried not to regret anything" that she ever did, because at least she could learn something from it.

But the problem is....we're supposed to regret things. We're flawed creatures, and will be until the Lord returns. And when we sin, the attitude of a person with a godly heart will be to repent. Regret is interchangeable with remorse (and, coincidentally, with sorrow), which is required for true repentance.

Now, I've heard the "don't regret anything" story before, but never from anyone who professed to be a Christian. And since that statement was made, I've heard it from other "Christian" sources, as well.

So, my question is: who's teaching this philosophy (even "new theology") in our churches, and why?

I guess the short answer is that its genesis lies in people bringing that idea in from the world, and never abandoning it in light of the truth found in the Bible. After all, people have been doing that to Christianity for nearly two thousand years.

I just hope this one doesn't stick around like some others have....

that's it

I'm officially sick of hearing about the freaking iPhone.

that's all.

the rest of the story

yesterday, my wife and I went to church with my folks (who are members of basically a community church bordering on being charismatic). The preacher/pastor person who spoke seemed to have a good, cohesive message, and used a scriptural example to demonstrate his point. And then he missed the point completely.

His example was of that of Mephibosheth, the grandson of King Saul, who was crippled and exiled at the end of Saul's reign (and life). The claim was that David sought out Mephibosheth and extended grace and mercy to him, even unconditional love. And the comparison was to God's love. The statement that this pastor made over and over again was that "this kind of love is not dependent on the response of the person to whom it is offered" and the message was that God gives us salvation regardless of how we respond to Him.

We all know this is not true. Or do we? I tried to engage my folks in a conversation about this, and they said that it was implied that repentance is part of the story but it just was not explained in the sermon. I know for a fact that several members of my family don't understand the tie to repentance, and I believe very firmly that the importance of repentance is being lost to whole generations (just starting on a second one). So, if those who know just assume that the full story is being told, who will be left in 20 years to speak the truth and tell the rest of the story to those who are lost?

It was just another moment in a sad weekend.....

The cross too graphic?

Something the other day struck me as both curious and mildly offensive. I was discussing movies with a coworker and the subject of the movie "The Passion of the Christ" came up. My position is that it was somewhat revolutionary in that the intent was to depict the graphic violence involved with Jesus' death for our sins. This person is an atheist (most days, agnostic on others), and found the movie too graphic for public consumption. He further stated that, if he had been "on the fence" with regard to religion, the movie would have sent him over the edge the other way.

In hearing this, I came to a realization that this man is one of those whose hearts are basically dead to the gospel. His response ranges from casual disinterest to being abjectly offended by everything at the core of being a true disciple of Christ.

My question is this: at what point, if ever, can we let go of the burden of evangelizing a person, including people such as this? Are we always to carry an expectation that everyone must be and will be saved?

Music revolution

If any of y'all have been paying attention, the RIAA is lobbying to start charging radio stations (historically, their free advertising venues) for playing recorded music. This could change the face of over-the-air radio, because in the past record companies have typically paid radio stations to play their music.
My question is this: why is it so hard for them to just bow to the "supply-and-demand" rules of a capitalist economy? They've kept prices for recorded media artificially high for (literally) decades, and don't see that at least part of the solution is to lower prices. The average cost of producing a CD is (and has been for quite some time, even accounting for inflation) about $1. Artist contracts typically return about $1 to the artist for each album sold. So where does the rest of the $12-$19 for a CD go (that's at least a 600% markup)? To the record company, of course. And record company execs are the ones leading the way with the highly publicized suits and legislation battles. And in this battle, I'm guessing that megacorporations like Clear Channel have previously been sitting on the sidelines. With these monsters going at each other, there is bound to be some far-reaching change coming.

Now, one of the reasons I put this here is that the basis for all of this is, as far as I can tell, simple, unfettered GREED. Record company execs want to maintain their indulgent, hedonistic lifestyles, and they're willing to fight dirty to do it. If all of those folks actually lose their sources of wealth, and the music economy crashes, the bad boys (and girls) of the music world will fade from the public eye and maybe we'll be able to restore some sense and morality to this world.

How do you respond?

I strongly believe in promoting unity in the church. More importantly, I believe in promoting unity among "believers," including those who are part of the majority of Protestant christendom. Therefore, I believe strongly in continually striving to persuade others of the falsehood of the Sinner's Prayer. And, yet, there are stumbling blocks in the way that seem impassable.

Recently, my father (in a very accusatory fashion) questioned why my wife and I are not looking outside of the Churches of Christ for a church home. He took offense to it because, to him, it was an implication that all other churches are wrong. I actually do partially believe that, but the complexity of this argument is too broad to pick up for a few moments at a time. My response was a question returned to him: why don't y'all go to a Mormon Temple? And this was the first time that my father seemed to pull up short in pursuing this argument, and it stuck in my mind. My realization was that I basically had to put myself in his place and make it relevant to him in order for him to get a glimpse of my beliefs, my view of the world.

In general, this is true for contending with someone on any subject, and I believe that it's partially captured in Jesus' statement "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." (Matt 5:41). It is our job, our responsibility, our commision to effectively convince everyone of the truth of the gospel. That means putting it in context that they can understand. It means striving to overcome years or decades of misconceptions or false teachings. It also means constantly re-examining things to put them in context of the Word, and seeing where there are opportunities to speak the truth to this world.

Yes, it does sound endless. Yes, it does sound tiring. And, yes, it does sound like it's worth every second spent doing it.

Peace be with you

Justifying divorce

In spite of all my years in this world, I am still occasionally surprised by the sinister nature of the human heart. Right now, I'm surprised by how people attempt to justify divorce, and even try to put a "godly" spin on things.

I have a friend who, several years ago, started doing some soul-searching and began looking for the Lord. In the process of entering into fellowship with believers and studying the Bible with them, he somehow came to a bizarre conclusion: he had never loved his wife. Even more bizarre is the fact that he went and told her this after he was converted, adding that he didn't think he would ever love. Needless to say, this declaration tore through their lives like a Kansas tornado. He never recanted his statement, and eventually she (I believe) filed for divorce. He was sorrowful about the whole thing, but never remorseful. A couple of years later, some mutual friends of ours made claims to the effect that, even though the Lord hates divorce, the situation wasn't good, and He had to provide a way out of the situation (the solution being to divorce).

...

The other day, in the process of contending with her spiritual advice (frequently unsolicited) in the past, my stepmother declared that she firmly believed that my dad's marriage to my mom (which ended in divorce) was not God's perfect will for him, and that she (my stepmom) was. Basically, instead of crediting the grace of God in bringing them together after the marriage, she attempted to say that, somehow, the Lord allowed the right thing to happen in the end. The conclusions of her statement also imply that my older brother and I are mistakes here in this world, and that whatever she has done for us has been out of her copious grace and self-sacrificing nature (heavy sarcasm intended).

In both cases, people nullified the power of the Word of God in their lives. They chose to exalt themselves instead of admitting their sinful nature and asking for God's power to overcome it. In the case of my friend, I believe that the Christ-like thing to do would have been to stay in the marriage and learn to love his ex-wife as Christ loves the church. In doing so, he may have won her to Christ in the end. But this is not what happened.

In the case of my stepmom, I believe the Christ-like thing would be to see that they, too, are part of a forever broken family that has at it's center my dad. They should have a pretty acute understanding of how destructive divorce is, and that they are merely survivors of it. And they should do everything in their power to counsel anyone against it and help see them through rough spots in marriage in the future. But this is not what happened.

Before I continue on to my final example, I feel I should state that, though the people mentioned above attend church regularly, the churches aren't Churches of Christ. That shouldn't matter, however. They claim to believe in the authority of the Word of God in the Bible, and that should be enough.

That being said, my final example is one of a preacher I know. He has said on more than one occasion that he knows that God hates divorce - it's in the Bible for all to see. Yet, he has also stated on more than one occasion that he believes that, while divorce is viewed as such by God, it's "sometimes necessary." He wasn't talking about cases of adultery or an unbelieving spouse sending away the believing spouse, either. He has counseled people in his congregation to divorce over matters such as "mental anguish" and other irreconcilable differences.

This is just a snapshot of cases in my microverse. I can only imagine other examples there are out there of such things.

In the end, I have but one question: when my children are grown, who (other than my wife and I) will be there to defend the sanctity of marriage to them? If they hear the clamor of people justifying divorce in such ways, will they even hear the gentle voice of the Lord telling them to stick with it...forever?

Jesus was a....liberal?

My wife and I saw this bumper sticker on a car on Sunday at lunch, and both of us were floored.
I can't understand how anyone would mistake Jesus for a liberal, and it would be nice if someone at least attempted to explain it.

I could easily say that Jesus was a communist, with just as much accuracy. The heart of communism isn't a ogliarchical regime, but rather "from those with means to those with the need". Everyone is supposed to share, no one is supposed to be wealthy and lord it over others (not even government officials), and every person is equally necessary to the structure and survival of society. Those given the most authority also have the most responsibility live on a precipice of accountability. That very message is contained quite nicely in the letters to the churches (epistles).

But it's far from the truth.

The difference is in the heart behind what's being done, and, ultimately, who is glorified by the doing. Communism exalts the state, and will sacrifice all for the glory of the state. The goal of the liberal is to glorify the individual. Sacrifice everyone for the sake of one person's rights, no matter how much each person's rights tend to conflict with each other's.

As Christians, our mission, our heart should be to glorify the Lord, and give all for His glory.

If the poor are provided for and the hungry are fed, and the credit is given to the government, rather than to the Lord, then it's all in vain. If personal responsibility and morality are discarded in order to benefit one person, then truth becomes irrelevant.

If anything is exalted above the Lord, then it's idolatry. Removing our dependence on the Lord (and His chosen method for doling out his provision for the world - the CHURCH) is not just wrong, it's sinister. It is a herald of the antichrist (whether that's a person or an ideology that's coming is irrelevant).

Jesus wasn't "conservative" or "liberal". He was and is godly (He IS God), and in order to follow Him, we need to understand His heart in all things.

The fool says in his heart "there is no God" - signs of the last days #2

Combined with James Cameron's latest attempts, I think this could be considered another sign of the last days...

http://www.thegodmovie.com/



The blurb on this web ad says "irreverantly lays out the case that Jesus Christ never existed" (credited to Newsweek magazine).



At this point, I don't know how much publicity this will get (and maybe I'm wrong in adding to that with this post), but little things like this have a way of gaining a cult following and festering (much like the Michael Moore films reference on the page).

signs of the last days, part 1

Crazy human behavior can always be explained away by our sinful nature. But when animals start going crazy, it's something to take note of.

The start of something big?

This is a bizarre story. There's a couple in Germany fighting for their "independence" from persecution of their relationship. They're being persecuted because they're siblings. Yes, they are brother and sister, from the same biological parents. And they've had kids. Four of them, in fact. They want the German incest laws repealed based on it infringing on their human rights. Their lawyers are arguing that only acts which harm society may be made illegal, and incest doesn't harm anyone.



Try telling that to their first two kids, who were born with birth defects and were taken away from them due to the illicitness of their relationship. I presume that either the government (read: everyone) or another couple is bearing the responsibilities of caring for the children. So, it has made a dent in society.



The resulting legal battle could have implications that might tear gaping holes in society.

Jesus loves me

Earlier, I had posted on what it means to love Jesus. Today, I'm pondering the other side of that coin.

Thanks to a strange but brave man (or is it a group that's doing it these days?) carrying a simple sign quoting John 3:16 to football games and public events of all kinds, it is widely known that God loves us. And recently, I've had...a discussion with someone who fell back on that as justification for professing some fairly worldly views.

While it is true that the Lord loves us, it is equally true that He loves ALL of us. He loves Osama bin Laden just as much as He loves me. But that doesn't mean Osama is in His kingdom, or is living a godly life. And the Bible warns against anyone falling away from the truth, because falling away from the truth is departing from God and His salvation. It is true that the Lord will never leave us or forsake us. But He also gives us the freedom to walk away from Him, His protection and promises. We can be sure of our salvation as long as WE don't elect to walk away from it.
And those who follow the ways of the world clearly are walking away from Him (James 4:4).

The Richland Hills Church of Christ has recently decided to add a single service that utilizes musical instruments in worship, and the range of opinions I've heard on this matter has sent me reeling. Most of the arguments against it have been vocalized many a time before. But recently I heard one that really made me scratch my head.

Some friends made the point that it was important to preserve our heritage of a cappella worship, and said that changing that was not something the founding fathers of the church would have wanted. My question, though, is this: who are the founding fathers of the church? Stone and Campbell? The church didn't begin in the 18th or 19th century - it began at Pentecost (and, I would argue, at the start of Jesus' ministry on earth). So the "founding fathers", at most, should refer to Peter, John, James, Paul, etc.......the inspired authors of New Testament epistles. So why would my friends desire to return to the wishes/intent of men who lived in the past couple of centuries? I guess the heart behind it is similar to those others I've had debates with in the past who turned to commentaries for supporting statements rather than turn back to the Word. They want to understand and do things a certain way, and will find a way to justify themselves. Truth is secondary.

Well, here's one more case where the Word proves itself:

2 Timothy 4:3
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

If we don't take everything back to the Bible, seeking the heart of God and His intents for things, then what are we even doing here?

Faith and politics

It's becoming increasingly hard for me to understand how a Christian could align himself/herself with the Democratic party. Actually, it's impossible for me to understand, and getting more and more frustrating to me. The Democratic party supports so many things that are in opposition to God's will that it seems it would be unconscionable to anyone who purports to follow Christ. Can someone tell me how they can reasonably be known as a Democrat and a Christian?