Dobson’s Job

After the fight between Obama and Dobson the other day, a friend of mine commented on how James Dobson just wants us all to live by some rules that he creates. I was really bothered by that statement. James Dobson does not want to impose his rules on you. James Dobson believes you – like every man, woman, and child – are going to die and go to hell (without Christ’s salvation). Dobson is trying to prevent this.

more »

Sometimes people make this a way bigger deal than it needs to be. Clear and simple, if you truly believed in the deepest part of your soul that someone you knew was going to die today if you didn’t stop them... wouldn’t you do everything you could think of in order to prevent it? James Dobson is doing everything he can think of to prevent people from going to hell.

comment

« less

Dobson vs. Obama

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, gave all the news agencies (oh, and bloggers like myself) something to go off about this week. Dobson confronted Obama over a speech he gave in 2006 which seems to say the Bible and religious values have no place in deciding public policy.

more »

The verbal firestorm was sparked by this statement from Obama...

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?

People who do not have a good understanding of the Bible – and this is not saying Christians, vs. non-Chirstians... simply anyone who has not taken the time to understand what the Old Testament represents and what the New Testament represents – will bring up an individual verse out of the Bible and suggest it is to be taken literal. They don’t mention the context of the verse, who the verse was spoken to, or any historical perspective.

Obama did just that in his speech.

Leviticus is a book that primarily speaks of offerings, both gifts to God and offerings as a way to atone for your sins. What is described in this book is not something that we are told to follow, simply because it was trumped by Jesus coming to die for our sins.

Even the word “atonement” that is used in this book shows the difference in what the Jewish people were required, and what we are now required. The hebrew word used in this book meant “to cover”, whereas in the New Testament the word used means “to make one with”. The Jewish people were able to use these sacrifices to cover their sin. We can now be one with God because Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t cover our since, it removes it.

As I stated previously, it is ludicrous to pull one sentence from the Bible and ask if this is something we should be basing our laws on. Obama suggests that “folks haven’t been reading their Bible.” He’s obviously read it, but did he learn it?

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology,” Dobson said, “... he is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter.”

Obama replied, “there’s no theological work being done in that speech in terms of the Bible.”

But Dobson is correct here. While Obama argues that he is not doing any theological work in his speech, he is in fact distorting something he found in the Bible in order to make is fit his views.

Continuing on statements made in Obama’s speech...

I have to explain why abortion violates some principal that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This smacks of the current “tolerance” crap in our country. There’s a problem here in that someone has to dictate what is or is not moral. If what Obama is stating is correct, morals are a sliding scale based on how we as a country feel right now.

I’m reminded of the controversial comparison between two men marrying each other and a man marrying a horse. The proponents of gay marriages say that it’s obvious that a man marrying a horse is ridiculous and obviously immoral. True... today it is. But if morality can be easily shifted simply by enough of the public changing their opinion, then why is it impossible to think horse marriages will be the highlight of a future election?

Stephanie Dube blogged, “in politics, we can’t just demand a law because the principle is in the Bible. If we do that, then someday we’ll find laws passed based on other religions that might destroy our own freedoms.” But she’s missing an important point. Like it or not, this country was founded on biblical principals. People like Dobson are upset because what Obama is doing is exactly what she is warning against. Taking the Bible out of our laws is exactly the same as making laws based on other religions.

We have to find an absolute. There has to be a solid line defining what is right and what is wrong. And there’s only one person who ever made that absolute.

This verbal fight between Dobson and Obama has accomplished one positive thing... it’s brought some important issues to the forefront of people’s minds. It has sparked a debate and a dialog with a lot of people over who or what determines what is and what is not moral. This is a decision this country needs to make. We have 92% of this country who claim to have a belief in God, yet it is obvious that a majority do not want God to be this country’s moral compass. I probably won’t like what the final decision is, but it is time for this country to make a stand on whether we are really going to be a Christian nation as it was founded, or whether we will just get along with everybody. You can’t have both.

comment

« less

California Gay Marriage

While I was sans Internet, the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Sexual orientation, like race or gender, “does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” This decision by the court overturns a 2000 voter referendum banning same-sex marriage.

more »

Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the group Concerned Women for America, said in a written statement...

The California Supreme Court has engaged in the worst kind of judicial activism today, abandoning its role as an objective interpreter of the law and instead legislating from the bench.

The decision must be removed from the hands of judicial activists and returned to the rightful hands of the people.

I read very similar comments in a number of email I received over the past few days. Most of my conservative friends expected me to agree with them. While I completely disagree with the court’s decision, I have an issue with Barber’s comments.

We have a system in place that prevents “mob rule”. What would happen if the majority of voters determined that “colored people” couldn’t eat in the same restaurants as whites? What if a majority of people felt religious people shouldn’t be allowed to pray in public? Would you then want the courts to “overturn the will of the people”?

The courts are there specifically to go against the will of the voters... when the voters a deciding something that may be unconstitutional. So in that regard, the courts are not legislating from the bench.

Whether gay marriage is a constitutional right... that’s a whole other entry.

comment

« less

Suess the Prophet

The wife and I took our boys to see Horton Hears a Who this weekend. The movie was amazingly well done. The animation really looks like the Suess world come to life, using the same styles, colors, and unorthodox angles and curves that made Suess books so entertaining. There were only two parts that were not very enjoyable. The first was the “Pokemon” scene, where the writers felt the need to dumb down the original Suess style to something modern – as if kids can’t relate unless you make it like every other cartoon out there. The second was the annoying musical number at the end, that did not fit the mood of the entire movie at all. I haven’t read the story in a long time, and was surprised by the religious undertones I sensed in the movie. I felt strangely connected to Horton throughout the movie.

more »

Horton is convinced that there is a whole world in trouble on a tiny spec that he’s managed to save on a flower. No one believes him... if you can’t see it or hear it, then it can’t exist. The know-it-all, Sour Kangaroo, has such a strong personality – plus she’s a respected leader in the jungle – everyone quickly chooses to side with her over Horton. Even Horton’s best friend, Morton, tries to convince him that it’s best if he just keeps his beliefs to himself. He doesn’t say Horton should change what he believes, just don’t tell anyone.

Even when Horton does choose to keep his beliefs to himself, that’s not good enough. Instead it moves to slight teasing, increasing quickly to full embarrassment and ridiculing, and finally flat out persecution. And again, even his friends, while not contributing to his persecution, do very little to stop it.

The parallels to Christianity are uncanny. If you can’t see God, if you can’t hear Him, then He doesn’t exist. If you want to believe it, just keep it to yourself. Even your friends tell you it’s okay to believe what you want, but just don’t tell anyone.

How long after is it that you are laughed at? You take your personal – and now private – beliefs and separate yourself from mainstream society. Eventually, even that is not good enough. “Rope him, cage him.” Even the do-gooders in society can’t help but spread rumors that you still believe. “I saw him, he still thinks there is a God.” Eventually the only way to save yourself is to publicly confess you no longer believe.

In the U.S. this all seems ludicrous. Or does it? As I write this, there are literally thousands of web sites explaining why creationists are laughable, and thousands of sites that explain how laughable it is that people believe in a God. On YouTube there is a 21 part series entitled, “Why Do People Laugh At Creationists?” Have you ever had a friend tell you that it’s okay if you believe in God, but don’t tell everybody about it? Or perhaps they say something more subtle, like, “Believing in God should be a personal and private thing.” How far off are we from being removed from mainstream society? How long before we are told that we just need to denounce our beliefs?

---

Audrey Geisel, wife of the late Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel), has stated she does not like people “hijacking” Dr. Suess stories to make political statements. This is fairly ironic, as Geisel’s early works were satirical commentaries against various political views he didn’t agree with. At the beginning of World War II, Geisel wrote political cartoons for the left-wing New York daily paper, PM. Even his children’s books were known for containing subtle political references. In “Horton”, the monkeys make statements borrowed from Joseph McCarthy.

comment

« less

Inconvenient God

I Kings 17 tells a story of Elijah in the midst of a drought. The thing I find fascinating in this story is how completely inconvenient God makes Elijah’s life. We have ideas in our head on how things should be, and how we would do things if we were God. But God doesn’t subscribe to our theories. He does things his own way.

more »

Here is the story as the Bible tells it...

(This is my paraphrase, not any sort of official translation, which you can read here.)

The current king, Ahab, married a woman who was into idol worship... which pretty much makes Ahab into idol worship. One of the gods was Baal, who is the “god of nature”. Elijah tells Ahab that there will be no rain for a few years. No rain until Elijah says so. No rain makes Baal look bad. Real bad.

This will undoubtedly make Ahab angry with Elijah, so God suggests that Elijah should flee. God picks out the Kerith Ravine for Elijah. The name means “cut off”, so it’s probably a pleasant place to hide. Elijah drinks what he can from the brook, and he eats what food the ravens bring him.

By the way, a raven is a dirty animal to a law abiding Jew. The comparison would be to have pigs bring food to a Muslim.

Since there was indeed no rain, the brook dried up. God tells Elijah he should move on, and tells him to find a widow in Zarephath. This is a 60 mile walk. No food, no water, and a 60 mile walk to go find a widow who may or may not want you to come visit. When Elijah gets to the widow, she says, “I don’t even have any bread. I have only a handful of flour and a little oil.”

This chain of events makes no sense... to man. After all, Elijah was doing what God instructed. Compare that to how the story would read if man were in charge...

As noted before, King Ahab worships Baal, the “god of nature”. Elijah tells him there will be no rain, angering the king. God sends a horse to Elijah so that he can go visit the wealthy ruler in a nearby town. This wealthy ruler has plenty of food and water, as well as a well guarded fortress to hide the prophet. Chances are, the ruler also hates Ahab, so he and Elijah can site around talking about how evil Ahab is. Elijah hides there for three years until he can return to Ahab to make his point that idol worship is wrong, and Baal is a false god.

God is all powerful. There’s no reason he could not have done it this way. But God has never been convenient. Virtually every story in the Bible confirms that being a follower of God is not convenient either. Conversely, the more you follow Him, the more likely you are to run into struggles.

If man had truly made this whole thing up, why wouldn’t he have made him more convenient? Why wouldn’t God’s logic fit ours more closely?

comment

« less

Jesus: Life Enhancer

We seem to have a bad habit of “selling Jesus” as a way to improve life. If you become a Christian, your life will be so much better. The Bible is full of promises of prosperity and happiness, accept Jesus and cash in! What a bunch of bunk.

more »

You go into the heart of the jungle and tell some poor hut-dweller that his life can get better if he accepts Jesus. Go into an oppressive country, where Christians are slaughtered for their beliefs, and tell them that their life would be better if only they believed in Jesus.

Why did Jesus come?

1. To bring the truth...

And for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. – John 18:37

2. To save...

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. – Luke 19:10

3. To judge (shocking, I know)...

For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind. – John 9:39

The Bible doesn’t say Christ came to make you happy, end your poverty, or even fix your marriage. The Bible says if you become a Christian, you’ll probably have it even worse...

In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted – II Timothy 3:12

If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. Remember the words I spoke to you: ’No servant is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. – John 15:19-20

We have got to stop offering false hopes that Jesus will enhance people’s lives. He won’t. And when life’s issues come back – and they will come back – people who are only in it for the convenience won’t stick around. Jesus didn’t offer the Samaritan woman water for her physical need, He offered her living water. We need to be providing eternal solutions, not short term fixes.

comment

« less

Mega-Church Money

I’ve heard a lot of comments regarding how mega-churches just “rake in the money”. These commentators have no experience with mega-churches, having never attended one nor worked for one. But they think they have the authority on the money the church rolls in.

more »

I once heard a church averages $20 per adult, per week. For sake of argument, let’s assume there are 2,500 adults attending your church on Sunday morning. That puts the annual income around $2.5 million. Sounds like you’re rolling in it now, right? Before you go spending it on yachts and luxury cars, you’re going to have to pay some bills.

If you have 2,500 adults visiting each week, you will also have roughly 2,500 children. Just the cost of ownership for a building – or buildings – to hold that many people will run about $500,000 per year. On top of the cost of ownership there is also an unknown amount for upkeep and maintenance such as painting, repairing, parking lot sealing and striping, and so on. And if you plan to have 5,000 people milling about, you’re going to need really good liability insurance.

Utilities are not cheap either. The electricity alone for this large of a campus would run an estimated $600 per hour. That’s $200,000 annually to provide Sunday morning services only. Don’t forget to add the water bill and heating bill to that.

Internet services (web hosting, firewall, and connectivity) would be around $12,000. Printing costs for bulletins, flyers, sign-up forms, and mailers will run a surprising $250,000 each year.

The larger the congregation, the more staff you will need to handle all of the logistical requirements. On average, for every 200 adults, you will want to have one pastor, one full-time staff person, and one part-time staff person. Staff will range from secretaries to graphic artists, audio engineers to janitors, and even web developers. With 12 pastors and 25 additional staff, you can expect to have a payroll of over $1 million. This doesn’t count the costs all employers pay like payroll taxes and social security.

We’ve now covered over 80% of your budget. The typical church spends 10% of all donations on their foreign missionaries, so make that over 90% of your budget already spent. But don’t worry, you still have $250,000 to split with the hungry, the needy, the children... you do want to have a Vacation Bible School each summer, right?

If you’re reading this, and you’ve already made plans to start your own mega-church to become rich... sorry it doesn’t look like it’s going to work out. Maybe you could try having a bunch of foster kids.

comment

« less

show all 17 stories