Hodgepodge of a Blog

Is It a Sin?

2010-02-15T07:59:00.000-08:00

Dr. Keith Drury of Indiana Wesleyan University wrote an internet column this week that can be viewed at http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/the.holiness.question.htm.

I wrote a response to the article (and to the responses the article had received up to that point), which I would like to share here as well:

As a follow-up to the original article and to the responses up to this point, there seem to be two questions: "Is It a Sin to Drink Beer?" (the question in the article title); and the question as to whether there should be stricter, more lenient, or the same standards for 21-year-old (and older) students at a denominational university as there are for the general membership of the denomination.

I guess that the problem I see more and more is that blanket statements as to what is and what isn't sin (or, conversely, what does or does not contribute to "godliness") simply don't cover every aspect of most issues (get it? blanket...cover? In the genre of Foghorn Leghorn--"That's a joke son!").

Back to seriousness, the longer I have lived and the longer I have been a Christian, the more I have realized that the tendency over the years (especially in the past, although I see this relaxing a bit more now) has been to codify things as unacceptable not because they are contrary to some specific Biblical mandate(s) in and of themselves, but because they have the potential, at least in the eyes of some people, to lead to behaviors that would indeed go contrary to Biblical mandate(s). In effect, it becomes sin by degrees of separation.

Drinking beer is a perfect example. On one hand, drinking beer can, and indeed often does, lead to drunkenness, against which the Bible speaks. On the other hand, The drinking of wine as recorded in John 2 indeed led to "godliness." So while in the hearts and minds of some people the tendency towards drunkenness while drinking beer will far outweigh the likelihood that drinking beer will be a tool that is used to lead to "godliness", making the blanket statement against drinking beer doesn't allow for the fact that there are indeed exceptions to the general rule. I sometimes wonder if classifying something universally as a "sin" when it really isn't universally a sin is not in itself a sin!

At the same time...these students aren't being forced to attend a certain university, and when they choose to attend that university, they are agreeing to abide by the rules set forth by the decision-makers of the institution (whether or not the students should have a role in the decision-making process is another whole issue).

By extension, the same can be said of the general membership of the denomination. Nobody is ever forced to join a Wesleyan congregation (or in my case, a Church of the Nazarene congregation). But sometimes doctrinal standards can seemingly tend to "get in the way" of certain things, such as church membership. For instance, if a local congregation is doing well spiritually and financially, is serving Jesus within its community, and is attracting enough people who are actively involved in the church's worship and ministry to make it a viable institution, generally speaking, stricter standards can usually be set for people to hold leadership positions--or even to become official members of the congregation. But if a congregation is struggling, the tendency could be (not necessarily SHOULD be) to relax standards of membership and/or leadership positions in order to have the human resources necessary to continue and/or build the ministry.

It therefore seems to me that as long as institutions of higher learning that are affiliated with "holiness" denominations continue to draw enough students to not only let the institutions be viable, but to thrive, the tendency will be that the relaxing of standards of behavior for the educational institutions will lag behind the relaxing of standards for the general membership of the denomination.

The Message of Entire Sanctification

2009-11-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

Keith Drury asked a question in his most recent "Tuesday Column" regarding the preaching of "entire sanctification" and whether or not folks in the 1800's "Holiness Movement" were deceived or correct.

My answer is that the doctrine is still developing. A key is the question, "What does holiness look like?" As some respondents to the column have said, over the years holiness preaching tended to get confused with living certain lyfestyles=holiness, and living other lifestyles=worldliness. If a person didn't identify, for instance, with the total abstinence from alcohol or tobacco issues, he or she couldn't have experienced entire sanctification. The lines got blurred between what was Biblical and what was "expected".

Many who decry the lack of "holiness" preaching these days seem to be more bothered that there's not enough preaching of rules and that certain rituals (i.e., the altar call, the campmeeting, the multiple-service revival, etc...) have become less commonplace.

In addition, an attitude has crept into our culture (especially in North America) that even Christians and non-Christians seem to espouse--one that says that people are basically good deep down. This flies in the face of the traditional Christian worldview that we are conceived in with natures that need cleansing from sin.

Finally, the evolution of the word "perfection" has changed the way the doctrine is viewed. Today, if a person claims "perfection", more people than not think if perfection of PERFORMANCE, not perfection of love towards God and others. Therefore, people likely tend to shy away from using the term "perfection", not because something different occurs (or doesn't occur) today compared with 100-150 years ago, but because the meaning of the terminology to the average listener has changed.

Here's how I have understood it. Look at Hebrews 10:14 which says in the NIV translation, "by one sacrifice, he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." Now, I'm not a Greek scholar, but I tend to like this particular translation for this verse, because it implies a one-time work (sacrifice) that HAS MADE PERFECT (a completed deal) those who ARE BEING MADE (an ongoing deal) holy.

I can understand entire sanctification only by acknowledging the functional human trichotomy of body, mind, and spirit. At entire sanctification, God indeed perfects one's spirit--endowing that person's spirit with a perfect love for God and others. In function, this righteousness of spirit is IMPARTED (not imputed), making a real change in condition from one of the person being naturally inclined towards selfishness (i.e., evil, or sin) to the person being transformed to being primarily inclined towards godliness.

But while the spirit is indeed perfected, the body (flesh) is still subject to the fact that we live in a world that is still infected and affected by sin. While the true transformation of a person's spirit will indeed affect the way a person behaves, the truth of the matter is that the sin that surrounds the person will also influence the person's behavior. The mind is then the "battleground."

For instance; a person may have to make a split-second decision of "Do I step in front of the person who is about to shoot that innocent person, or do I sustain my own life?" The person's spirit is self-sacrificing, but the person's body is self-preserving.

Is that person still entirely sanctified? Yes. Can that person still make mistakes and/or even go against his/her transformed spirit and still choose selfishness over godliness? Yes. But it happens less and less as the person grows in maturity, being transformed in the renewing of his/her mind as time goes on.

So, did the holiness movement of the 1800's miss the boat? In theory, no, but in practice, perhaps the message they preach got to be based more on outward behaviors instead of the work the Holy Spirit did to perfect that person's spirit within.

Just my two-cents-worth.

Show Me The Money (and Power)

2009-08-15T05:59:00.000-07:00

A couple of anecdotal incidents I've heard about in the past week have caused me pause. They both have to do with people getting into hot water with government authorities over issues that happened so long ago that I would have thought the Statute of Limitations had run out. Both incidents were related to me by relatives of the people involved.

I was first told about a man who was arrested on outstanding warrant charges and was currently in an area city or county (I don't know all of the specifics) jail awaiting extradition to another state on misdemeanor charges from about 12 years earlier. I wasn't given too many details of this situation, but when I mentioned the Statute of Limitations, this man's relative told me that they had inquired about that too, but that for some reason it didn't seem to matter. It seemed odd to me that this man would have been sitting in jail (at that time for nearly 2 weeks) due to a 12-year-old, out of state misdemeanor (not felony) charge. But I kind of filed that information in the back of my mind.

Five days later, I was talking to a friend of mine, and told him about this situation (he doesn't know the family involved, and I didn't use names, anyway). This friend then told me about a situation one of his relatives is currently facing. In this case, I was told more details.

Approximately 17 years ago, a young man had moved to the Chicago area from out of state, trying to start out on his own. One day when he was at work, his car was stolen. Then when he came out of work, he was mugged, and all of his money was stolen. He'd had enough of Chicago, and moved back to his home state. However, before leaving Chicago, he did report his car as stolen.

Fast forward 17 years to earlier this year. This man went to renew his Ohio driver's license, but was told that he couldn't, because of an outstanding unpaid ticket in Illinois. It ends up that this man's stolen car 17 years earlier had been stripped, put up on blocks, and left under an underpass or viaduct, where the car was ticketed by police. But this man never received word of the ticket. Despite the ridiculousness of ticketing a car owner for "abandoning" a car that had been stolen from him (and reported stolen), the jurisdiction in charge (I don't know if it's city, county, or state) still has this case open, and is demanding not only the $40 charge for the ticket, but various other fees that have now been added, bringing the total they are demanding to over $500.

The man in question has a friend or relative who is an attorney, who offerred to look into the case on a pro bono basis. This attorney even offered to go to Illinois to represent the man. But when this attorney contacted the prosecutor from Illinois, the prosecutor basically said that the man should just travel to Illinois to plead guilty, being represented by the public defender offerred to him. The attorney who made the contact was told that if he appeared to represent this man, the costs would increase and the man would also likely be facing jail time.

In this current economy, it is true that many government entities are facing buget constraints. Some of these entities are stepping up enforcement of minor offenses in order to bring in more revenue to government coffers. Until now, I have thought that this was all about the money. But with the strong-armed tactics I've described--especially in the second scenario--I'm beginning to think that it also has to do with using the full force of the power of government to further intrude into people's lives.

Watch out. 1984 was 25 years ago, but here in 2009, more and more, Big Brother is watching.

The Secularization of the American Mind

2009-04-29T08:08:00.000-07:00

It gave me pause the other day as I was thinking about the fact that the President of the United States is only 5 days older than I am. Intellectually, I already knew this. But something significant came to my mind as I thought of this again the other day: President Obama and I are both part of the first generation of Americans to have been raised in an environment where the government-run education system prohibited God in its classrooms and schools. President Obama is the first American President to have begun his formal education after the historic 1962 Supreme Court Ruling that effectively banned prayer in government-run schools.

I have heard the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln that, "...the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether or not it was President Lincoln who actually said that, but whomever said it said something that certainly appears to be true.

Our nation has little-by-little, since 1962 taken God more and more out of the picture when it comes to education. I began my formal education in 1966 as a kindergartner at Goodwin School in Cicero, Illinois. By the time I began 1st grade, our family had moved and I spent grades 1-8 attending Highlands School in LaGrange Highlands, Illinois. I went through grades 9-12 at Lyons Township High School in LaGrange, Illinois. During all those years, from 1966-1979, I never experienced a teacher leading us in prayer. That didn't bother me, nor does it now, because I don't necessarily believe in state-sponsored prayers, since they tend to be rather generic (or pantheistic). At the same time, I can still remember that God could still be mentioned during those years. I can remember learning the Christmas Carol Away in a Manger in my 1st grade classroom. Throughout my years from elementary through high school, we were allowed to sing both secular and sacred music in our choirs, and we did. In high school, as part of our English classes, one of our units was studying the Bible as literature--not for theological purposes (we also studied Greek mythology the same school year). When we had time off of school at the end of December and into early January, it was known as Christmas Vacation, just as our time off in March or April not only corresponded with Easter, but was called "Easter Vacation."

But, there were some things pretty early on which I didn't understand then, but looking back on now I can see were signs that the educational philosophy was changing to one of secular humanization, and teaching the students through this lens. We weren't taught "History" from first through sixth grades; instead we were taught "Social Studies." Every few years, the school day would be lengthened, and/or the number of days school was required to be in session per year would be increased. This meant that incrementally, more and more of the students' time was going to be under the direct authority of the schools.

Now, I had some wonderful teachers. Some of them may have been Christian, but I don't know, because I don't recall any of them ever "sharing their faith" with me. But looking back on it now, it seems to me that at least two of my favorite teachers from my pre-teenage years demonstrated views that correspond to teaching students that the government-run schools and/or the secular worldview are what should be influencing students.

One of these teachers had served in the Peace Corps prior to joining the faculty at our school. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that; it is a noble thing to have done. It was great hearing about some of this teacher's experiences where he served in Micronesia (see, I still remember that, well over 30 years later!). I also remember a song he taught the class which he'd written; it was a song promoting love and peace--all from a secular point of view.

The other teacher one time said to our class that she hoped we thought of her as being more important than our parents. As I said, I really liked both of those teachers. But looking back, I can see that the educational philosophies and/or worldviews they taught and promoted were from a secular humanistic standpoint.

That is the educational enviromnent in which I grew up, and it was the philosophy of the classroom during that generation. We now have a President of the United States who was educated during the same time period, as a member of the first generation who was educated in this country after the 1962 Supreme Court ruling that banned prayer from government run schools. And since that ruling, government-run educational philosophies have evolved (or perhaps devolved) into more and more secular humanism. Schools can't even refer to their times off as "Christmas Vacation" or "Easter Vacation" anymore; instead these times are referred to as "Winter Break" and "Spring Break," respectively. Currently, goverments are pushing more and more to have control of the children and other students earlier, later, and longer.

For example, there has been more and more of a push in the past several years to require children to begin school at younger ages--pre-Kindergarten. It's often called "early childhood education." That's the "earlier."

The "later" goes to the other end of the spectrum, where it is ingrained more and more into students that now high school is not enough; people should make sure to get college degrees as a matter of course (at least if they want to get good paying jobs). And who is in charge of establishing the accreditation requirements of colleges and universities? The secular humanistic education establishment.

As for the "longer," all I have to do is point to the push in recent years for "year-round-school" and other similar programs. Earlier this year in his "State of the State" address, the Governor of Ohio proposed increasing the length of the school year by 20 days. This would in effect limit that much more family time and add to the amount of time most students are under the direct supervision of the government-run schools.

Maybe these types of things shouldn't surpise me, because, after all, these types of philosophies were what was taught to the generation of Americans who grew up during the same time as did the current President of the United States, and the current philosophies of government seem to be much in line with the philosophies that were being advocated in the classrooms 30-40 years ago. What will our government philosophies be 30-40 years from now? Perhaps we can get an idea if we will just look at the philosophies that are being advanced in today's government-run school classrooms.

The Question of Gambling Came Up

2009-02-13T07:14:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite internet columns to read is written by Keith Drury. In his most recent column, he addressed the issue of gambling. The article can be found at this URL:

http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/gambling.htm

Much of what the column asks is along the lines of what should and should not be considered gambling, and what the church's stance should be on gambling and such.

As usual, Keith's column generated a number of responses. These responses can be seen by following the links on his column at the above-mentioned URL. I felt that I should comment--as much (if not more) because of the comments that preceded mine as for the article. Here is what I said:

Scenario 1: John Doe goes out and gambles away his paycheck without leaving funds to provide for his family's meals, thereby harming himself and his family. Since gambling led to this problem, all gambling should be considered wrong.

Scenario 2: John Doe goes out and buys a hunting rifle, and one day in a fit of rage, shoots the members of his family and himself. Since the purchase of a hunting rifle led to this, all owning of hunting rifles should be considered wrong.

Scenario 3: John Doe goes out and buys a chocolate cake, and he and his family become such lovers of chocolate cake, they eat it every day and become obese. Since the purchase of a chocolate cake led to this, all chocolate cakes should be considered wrong.

Scenario 4: John Doe goes out and buys coffee, and shares coffee with his family. His family really comes to enjoy drinking coffee, and they all become addicted to caffeine. Since the purchase of coffee led to this, all coffee should be considered wrong.

There is a major commonality in all of those scenarios: none of the things in them said to be "wrong" is mentioned as wrong in Scripture, but by extending out the scenario, these things can be used in such a way so as to violate Scriptural principles.

I am Nazarene (which in doctrine is very close to Wesleyan), and we have a prohibition in our Manual against gambling. However, there is no such prohibition against hunting rifles, chocolate cake, or coffee (I assume the same is true for Wesleyans).

Perhaps the problem is that the more secular our society becomes, the more laws we feel we need.

The Pharisees and teachers of the Law turned the Scriptural commands (including the 10 Commandments) into hundreds of codes and regulations. Jesus came along and, instead of complicating matters, boiled it all down to two things: the first is to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength, and the the second is to love one's neighbor as one's self.

Romans 14 tells us that we should not pass judgment on "disputable matters (NIV translation), and that to one's own master one stands or falls. So why do often we feel it necessary to add rules to what Scripture says, and in effect judge the people who do not follow the rules with which we happen to agree?

By the way, on the entire gambling issue, I say this from the personal perspective of being someone who does not play "games of chance" but whose retirement investments and such have taken a beating over this past year.

I thought I would post this here as well, and let more people see not just my comments, but also read Keith's original column and the comments it generated.

So, in "borrowing" a line from Keith Drury, let me ask,

"So, what do you think?"

The Charisma Factor

2008-11-05T07:44:00.000-08:00

While the election of Barak Obama is certainly about many people's dissatisfaction with the way things have been going in this nation, I have been doing some looking into the past and have found something else that may have played a significant role in determining the winner of this year's election. I call it The Charisma Factor.

Since the Presidential election of 1932, a strong case can be made that the most charismatic candidate has won every election (the exceptions being when no candidate was seen as being charismatic in any given election year). Let's look, year by year.

1932 -- With America in the midst of The Great Depression, voters were looking for change. Not only did Franklin Roosevelt promise change, but his personality was far more charismatic than that of President Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt won the election handily.

1936 -- Roosevelt ran for re-election against Alf Landon. Roosevelt was a charismatic figure, and made great use of the fact that many people listened to their radios by giving what became known as his Fireside Chats -- radio addresses directly to the American people. Roosevelt's use of the airwaves with his charismatic public persona helped give him one of the biggest electoral majorities in U.S. Presidential history.

1940 -- Despite facing opposition from many people on principle that no President should serve more than two terms, Roosevelt was again re-nominated, and this time faced a challenge from former fellow-democrat Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie was charismatic in his own right, but with radio still being the primary medium through which most voters experienced connection with Presidential candidates, Wilke was at a disadvantage because his voice was at times described as "gravelly". This is in contrast to the paternalistic sound of Roosevelt's voice to which the voters had become accustomed over the past 8 years. Both candidates were charismatic in their own ways, but the charisma edge in 1940 went to Roosevelt, who won the election.

1944 -- Roosevelt was again re-nominated, and the United States was in the midst of a World War--a war which affected the daily lives of virtually every American. In June, 1944, the U.S. and Allied troops gained a foothold in France against the German Army, and patriotism ruled the day in the U.S., with the people wanting to win the war, not just get out of the war as soon as possible. Through it all, Roosevelt and his charismatic, paternalistic (and now even "grandfatherly") personality had led the nation through difficult economic times, and now through difficulties brought on by world war. Roosevelt's voice still was re-assuring to the people over the radio, and he defeated Republican Thomas Dewey, who was not known for having great public charisma.

1948 -- Harry Truman had ascended to the Presidency upon Roosevelt's death in 1945. The Republicans once again nominated Dewey for the Presidency, but this time he was facing Truman. Dewey was considered to be the overwhelming favorite in the Presidential race, and it is said that his speeches were generally lofty and non-specific when it came to the issues of the day. He gave the impression of being more or less a "well-oiled machine." Truman embarked on a long "whistle-stop" campaign, speaking to people all across the nation from the back of a train. He became known as "Give-em Hell Harry" because he was blunt in his speeches about how he believed that Republican-controlled congress had done nothing to help the nation. People seemed to connect with Truman more and more as election day drew near, and in what has been called one of the greatest upsets in Presidential history, Truman defeated Dewey. The argument can be made that the charismatic effect of plain speaking resonated with the voters more than the well-oiled machine.

1952 -- The Republicans nominated General Dwight Eisenhower, a war-hero who was known for his infectious smile. The democrats nominated Senator Adlai Stevenson, an intellectually deep thinker who often used big words that many people simply did not understand. By far, Eisenhower had more charisma than Stevenson, and Eisenhower ran away with the election.

1956 -- The same two candidates, with their same personalities squared off again in 1956, with the same result.

1960 -- The era of television was beginning. Vice President Richard Nixon was nominated by the Republicans for President, and Senator John Kennedy was nominated by the Democrats. Nixon held the edge in the election until the first-ever televised debate between Presidential candidates. Most people who heard the first debate on the radio said that Nixon won the debate. But people who saw the debate on television gave the debate victory to Kennedy, who simply looked better on television than did Nixon. Kennedy narrowly won the Presidential election, and many people have said that it was the televised debates that made the difference in that election. Kennedy's charismatic personality won out over Nixon's personality.

1964 -- Lyndon Johnson ascended to the Presidency upon the death of Kennedy. Johnson was the Democratic nominee, and he faced-off against Barry Goldwater. Neither candidate was particularly "charismatic", but Johnson had a very persuasive personality. At the same time, many people were still, less than a year after the charismatic Kennedy's assassination, hoping that Johnson would carry on with Kennedy's policies. Johnson won in a major landslide.

1968 -- Republican Richard Nixon faced Democrat Hubert Humphrey. These two candidates probably lacked charisma more than any two candidates that had faced each other to date since the pre-Franklin Roosevelt era. However, Nixon did make a cameo appearance on the popular television show Laugh In, and this little spot showed people that he had at least a little bit of a sense of humor. Nixon narrowly defeated Humphrey in an almost charismaticless election.

1972 -- Nixon was re-nominated, while the Democrats nominated Senator George McGovern. This was another almost charismaticless election, with Nixon winning by a landslide.

1976 -- Gerald Ford ascended to the Presidency upon the resignation of Nixon. The country was in an anti-Washington-Government mood in 1976. The Democratic nominee was a Washington outsider who sported a big smile and appeared to have a down-home, folksy personality--Jimmy Carter. Ford was portrayed by the media as a clumsy person (known for tripping, falling down while descending the ramp from an airplane, or while skiing), and did not possess a charismatic personality in general. In the end, the relatively unknown and untested, but more charismatic Carter narrowly defeated Ford.

1980 -- Carter was re-nominated by the Democrats, despite having suffered through many political storms during his Presidency. The nation was in a recession and its diplomats were being held hostage in Iran. During his term in office, President, Carter spoke on television, telling the people that they and the country were in a "malaise." His mood often seemed negative. The Republicans nominated Ronald Reagan, who promoted optimistic thinking, and who had a very charismatic personality. Reagan won the election handily.

1984 -- The charismatic Reagan was challenged by Democrat and former Vice President Walter Mondale. Mondale's personality was even less charismatic than those of previous Democratic nominees McGovern and Humphrey. Reagan won the election in a landslide.

1988 -- Vice President George Bush was nominated by the Republicans. His personality was nowhere near as charismatic as that of Reagan, but Reagan actively supported Bush's candidacy. In his own ways, Bush had charisma, but suffered in comparison to the charismatically-gifted Reagan. In a sense, Bush was running in part on Reagan's charisma. Bush's opponent was Democrat Michael Dukakis, whose public persona at times made Mondale seem almost Reagainesque. Bush won the election.

1992 -- Bush was renominated, and was thought to be a string favorite to win re-election. But the Democrats nominated former Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, a man a generation younger than Bush, whom some compared to Clinton's hero, John Kennedy. Clinton's personality was charismatic, and he played up this personality strength, especially to young voters, by doing things such as appearing and playing his saxophone on the Arsenio Hall Show. Clinton won the election.

1996 -- Clinton was re-nominated by the Democrats, and the Republicans countered by nominating Senator Robert Dole, who probably had the least charismatic public persona of any Republican candidate since Barry Goldwater. Clinton won re-election easily.

2000 -- Vice President Al Gore was nominated for President by the Democrats, while the Republicans nominated Texas Governor George W. Bush, son of the former President. Neither candidate had an overly charismatic public persona, but Gore seemed to many people to be rigid and stiff in public, while Bush was described by many as someone that people would enjoy "having a beer with." Despite finishing behind Gore in the national popular voting, Bush won the majority of electoral college votes.

2004 -- Bush was re-nominated by the Republicans, while the Democrats nominated Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. Kerry liked to compare himself with another Senator from his state who ran for (and won) the Presidency--John Kennedy. But Kerry's charisma-factor was nothing like Kennedy's; it was more like Mondale. Bush still had the personality of the kind of person people would enjoy "having a beer with," and won the election.

2008 -- Senator Barak Obama from Illinois was the Democratic nominee, with Senator John McCain from Arizona being the Republican nominee. McCain's personality was no match for the extreme charisma of Obama, who has a knack of uplifting crowds when he speaks. Based on the charisma factor alone, nobody could have beaten Obama this year, any more than anyone could have beaten Reagan in 1984, Eisenhower in 1956, or Roosevelt in 1936.

What will an Obama Presidency bring? We don't know. But unless it is a total failure or something totally unforeseen occurs, he will likely be likely be renominated by the Democrats in 2012. If the Republicans want to have any chance of defeating Obama in 2012, perhaps they should start looking for a candidate who can match Obama's charisma. But Obama is so charismatic, that may not be possible.

Looking at the current crop of potential Republican candidates in 2012 (and knowing that much can happen between now and then that might let other candidates emerge), it seems to me that the Republicans who could best challenge Obama on the Charisma-front would be either Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin.

Are High Oil Prices Part of the Terrorits' Plan?

2008-05-09T05:10:00.000-07:00

At first glance, it might seem far-fetched to link the high (and still rising) oil prices to terrorism. But is it really so far-fetched?

We hear all kinds of reasons (I still call them excuses) for the continuing rising prices, including higher world demand, and the weakening value of the dollar (among others). But let's stop and look at things a moment. It seems that lately, whenever there's a slight move downward in oil prices, something happens to set the speculators off into a buying frenzy that raised the prices again--usually to record levels.

Near the end of last week, oil futures were retreating from the $120+ per barrel range into the upper $110's. The dollar was gaining value. But then word came of several pieces of news, including renewed terrorist action against oil refineries in Nigeria. Suddenly the price of oil started rising again, hitting a record of over $125 in electronic trading (as of the most recent report I saw before I started to write this).

Can the terrorists be bothered at this rise in prices? I doubt it. In fact, it seems to make perfect sense that they could be working to encourage this rise in prices.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2201, on the United States were directed at least partially at U.S. the financial interests. Part of the immediate effect of the aftermath of those attacks was the temporary closing of the stock exchanges. When the markets re-opened, market levels immediately fell and didn't recover their losses for several years. In the meantime, the U.S. began committing unprecedented amounts of financial resources into the War on Terror, raising the national debt to record levels.

Not long after the markets returned to their pre-9/11 levels, the price of oil started climbing...and climbing and climbing. As I mentioned earlier, all kind of reasons/excuses were given for the increases. But it seems as though fear of oil supply disruption is often near the top of the list of excuses. Sometimes it has to do with inflammatory statements by some dictator in a Middle-Eastern, oil-rich country such as Iran. Over the past several days, attacks against Nigerian refineries have been mentioned as excuses. The excuses are said to cause concerns about adequacy of the oil supply, and the oil prices keep going up and up. The result of these rising oil prices has been an overall drain on the U.S. economy, with people talking about recession, and even the possibility of depression not too far down the road. Much of this trouble has been caused by surging oil prices, which raise the cost of shipping for every product, including food and textiles. The overall effect is that Americans have less and less spending power. This brings about a downturn in the economy, and until this cycle is stopped, the situation will only continue to get worse.

There is a significant amount of untapped oil in the U.S. and in the coastal waters surrounding the U.S. Yet our nation's own laws prohibit drilling for that oil, and the democrat-controlled Congress isn't likely to lift those restrictions because a significant part of the democrat constituency is comprised of people who are more concerned with trying to protect
the environment for caribou and sea creatures than they are with the overall well-being of the people of the United States.

In time of war, the U.S. Constitution grants the President of the United States powers that he would not normally have in peace time. I believe that it's time for President Bush to use some of his war-time powers to ease the oil supply problems and concerns by issuing Executive orders that will immediately open up ANWAR and coastal waters off the U.S. for oil exploration and drilling. The President should also issue Executive orders that will encourage the immediate building of oil refineries in the U.S.

It will likely be argued that the results of these orders won't be seen for at least 10 years. But it was 10 years ago that we were told that drilling in ANWAR would bring any new oil into the market for 10 years. If we'd have acted then, today our oil supplies would have been increased, and we just might not be seeing record oil prices on a daily basis.

It's time for the President to act now.

What's UP With Gasoline Prices?

2008-04-22T08:03:00.001-07:00

Oil and gasoline prices continue to rise. As I type this, prices in the Dayton, OH area have jumped today to a record (for this area) $3.599 per gallon of 87 octane gasoline, led (as usual, in this area) by Speedway stations setting their price at a level for the region, and other non-Speedway stations quickly following Speedway's lead.

There are many "reasons" (I like to call them "excuses") given for the rise in the prices of oil and gasoline: unrest in the Middle East; unrest in Nigeria; OPEC production levels being too low; greed by the big oil companies; commodities speculators driving the prices artificially high; a surge in oil usage by developing nations such as China and India; a weakening dollar; change over from winter to more costly summer gasoline formulations; no new oil refineries being built in the U.S. for decades; restrictions against drilling for oil off the coast of the U.S. or in other areas of the U.S. (ANWAR comes immediately to mind); and others that just don't pop into my head at the moment.

But the bottom line comes down to this: the prices keep going higher because people keep using the product, despite the higher prices.

I've heard on various news broadcasts that there has been a slight decrease in driving over the past few weeks by some people. But overall, in the eyes of the people who profit from the oil and gasoline industry, demand is high enough to justify the prices being where they are, because people are still purchasing the product.

I've heard a number of different ideas as to how to make prices go down. Usually the ideas have something to do with boycotting a certain brand of gasoline or not buying gasoline on a certain day. But those things simply will not work, because they don't make the overall demand for gasoline go down--they simply shift the demand from one company to another or from one day to another.

The problem is that in order for a boycott to work, it's got to cost something to both the one being boycotted and the one doing the boycotting. It's kind of like when a union goes on strike against a company; it costs the company because its business stops working, but it also costs the people on strike something because they do not receive their regular wages during the strike.

Basically, the only boycott that I can see having any effect at all on the prices of oil and gasoline would be if there was a nation-wide, day-long (or longer) boycott from driving. By not driving, the demand for the gasoline would go down, thereby costing the oil and gasoline companies something. By not driving, it would cost a person convenience and maybe even money, for instance if that person chooses not to drive to work.

I'd like to be optimistic and think that something such as this could work. But the reality is that the attitude of too many people would likely be that they will let someone else do it. It's kind of like the independent trucker's strike that was called for a couple of weeks or so ago--a few truckers followed through with the strike, but a much larger percentage of truckers just went on with business as usual.

For a high percentage of people, they feel it would cost them more to stop driving for a day than it would save them on paying for gasoline. So get ready for gasoline prices to continue to increase until such time that the high prices significantly reduce the amount of gasoline that is consumed.

Sometimes Things Just Don't Make Sense

2008-03-18T08:15:00.000-07:00

Is it hypocrasy or what? The culture has been inundated with sex, sex, sex, and more increasingly so since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and 1970's. It can be easy to forget that until that time, even aultery was considered really bad by society at large, and was one of the worst things to be accused of if a divorce was involved. Of course, even divorce was much less common then than it is now.

But since that time, sex has become more and more openly part of our society. Yeras ago, it used to be that people might not kiss on the first date. Now, the question often is whether or not to have sex on the first date. The point is that talk about sex is much more open than it was a few decades ago.

So why should society be surprised that there seems to be an increase in the incidents of adults having sex with minors? Granted, maybe part of the situation is just that these incidents are being reported more often, but the point is that because of the situation, laws are enacted regulating when sex is OK and when its not.

It used to be a lot more simole when sex was reserved for marriage. Now, people's entire lives can be messed up because they have sex.

For example, I heard a report on the radio the other day (I'm sorry, I can't remember specifics, so I can't cite the source) that a female 30-something-year-old teacher had accepted some type of a plea bargain that included her having to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life because she had sex with a 17-year-old boy. Now, for some of the more odd circumstances about this.

The incident happened (from what I recall from the radio report) about two years prior to the plea agreement. That means that a one-time incident from 2 years earlier has caused this woman to be branded for life as a registered sex offender.

The other bizzare aspect of this entire situation is that the radio report said that the 17-year-old turned 18 just 4 days after the incident. In other words, if the incident had occurred 4 days later, no crime would have been committed, and this woman would have had no "sex offender" label attached to the rest of her life.

Is it just me, or does this seem ridiculous? This whole being called an adult at age 18 is basically just an arbitrary thing. Why is a person suddenly considered an adult at age 18? Why isn't it at age 17, or age 21? It's arbitrary.

Hormonally, puberty generally starts in the early teen years. And these teenagers are inundated with sexual messages throughout their teen years, but are expected to do nothing with their sexual urges. Oh -- I guess that society says it's OK for teens to follow their urges under certain circumstances. It's OK to masturbate. It's OK to have sex with another teen as long as safe-sex is practiced. But make sure that a 16-year-old doesn't have sex with a 19-year old, because then the 19-year-old can be considered a sex offender, and may be branded as such for life. But in some states, people can still get parental permission to get married in their mid-teen years, and if the parents OK it, a teenager can marry someone 10 years or more older, and then this is OK.

Do you see what I mean about some things being ridiculous? There are too many arbitrary rules instituted by people who in effect want to justify certain actions while controlling the lives of as many other people as possible through enacting more and more laws.

Perhaps what is needed is to go back to the basics. Sex has been designed by God to be experienced within the context of marriage. Perhaps if society would start from that premise, things would become less complicated and arbitrary.

Maybe I Should Stay Out of Politics

2008-03-06T09:56:00.000-08:00

OK, Mike Huckabee is now out of the Presidential race. I would think that after all of these years I'd learn that my preferred candidate won't win.

But then again, maybe that shouldn't be surprising, because since when are the views of Christians supposed to be popular in a culture? It seems to me that Jesus said that if they hate us, it's because they hated him first.

I'm using the term "hate" here very loosely. I really don't want to say that supporters of one candidate necessarily literally "hate" the supporters of another candidate. But at the same time, why should I think that the political views I hold will be popular enough to be on the winning side? Since when are Christian's views supposed to represent the majority opinion?

And, by the way, Huckabee didn't hold to my positions on every issue. I really like the "Fair Tax" idea, which he supports. I'm pro-life, and he supports a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Combine that with the fact that he has projected a personality that seems would be one that could rally people to his candicacy and lead people to support him when he is in office, and I think he's make a good President.

But now, we are left with John McCain on the Republican side, and either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on the Democrat side. And whether we like it or not, there is almost a 100% probability that the next President of the United States will either be a democrat or a republican. No third party candidate will win the election.

So for now, the question I face is whether or not I care enough to vote for McCain (who, by the way, was my second-to-least favorite candidate vying for the republican nomination--Ron Paul was my least favorite) just because the prospect of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and their leftist, liberal views would be an alternative I really wouldn't want to see at all.

Right now, the likelihood is that I'll vote for McCain, even though his views really do not represent my own as much as the views of most of the republican rivals he faced for the nomination.

This is NOT a Scientific Poll

2008-01-28T12:12:00.000-08:00

The results are in. Last week I started a poll on NazNet.com regarding the Presidential race, and the top 9 contenders who were in the race at that time. Fred Thompson was included in the poll, although he announced his dropping out of the race shortly after I established the poll.

Know that I am making the assumption that the vast majority of people who participated in that poll are affiliated with the Church of the Nazarene, or, if not specifically Nazarene, the vast majority are Christians.

The entire poll results can be seen at the following URL or link: http://www.naznet.com/community/showthread.php?t=17612

My main interest, however, is in the top 2 vote-getters.

Mike Huckabee came in first with 31.11% of the vote. Second, with 26.67% of the vote was Barack Obama.

Only 1 other person finished with 10% or more of the vote, and that was John McCain, at 17.78%.

But just look at those numbers. What a diversity of values are represented by those candidates!

Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Huckabee and McCain are for the most part "conservatives," running for the Republican nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Republican party has held "conservative" values such as being "pro-life" on the abortion issue, pro-traditional marriage, pro-right-to-bear-arms, and in gereral in favor of lower taxes, including lower taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Republicans generally want to stay the course in Iraq and in the war against terrorism, and want to secure the U.S. boarders to stop illegal immigration, and don't want to "reward" people who are currently in the U.S. illegally with U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, and don't want those here illegally to get any special benefits towards becoming legal aliens or U.S. citizens, especially if it will put them in front of people waiting for those things who have gone through proper channels.

Generally speaking, at least when dealing with the political definitions, Obama is the most part "liberal," running for the Democrat nomination. Traditionally (at least for the past several decades), the Democrat party has held "liberal" values such as being "pro-choice" on the abortion issue, pro-homosexual rights, pro-gun control, and in gereral in favor of higher taxes on the "rich." Currently, the Democrats generally want to get the U.S. out of Iraq and are less willing to look at the situation in Iraq than are the Republicans as part of the bigger overall war against terrorism. Democrats (at least moreso than Republicans) generally want to provide U.S. taxpayer-paid benefits, to anyone who demonstrates need, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.

There are other differences between the two parties, but those are enough to mention for now.

The main point is that the two main vote-getters represent two almost totally different perspectives in government. And it is very likely that nearly all of the people who responded to the poll are self-identified Christians.

So my question is this:

Does the high percentage of votes for Obama in this poll signify a general change in the political bent of Christians since the 1980's?

What is the Sin "Du Jour"?

2008-01-10T09:49:00.000-08:00

Have you ever noticed that certain sins seem to be thought of as more reprehensible than others?

I sometimes find that somewhat odd, because the Bible seems to tell us, generally speaking, that sin is sin. The Bible says that if a person breaks any part of the Law, that person is a Lawbreaker.

Now, before I go on, I must say that I am in no way trying to defend sin. Sin is serious business. It's sin that causes people to spend eternity in Hell. It's sin that caused Jesus Christ to die on the cross for us. If something is serious enough for the Son of God to give His life because of it, it should not be taken lightly.

Now, the Bible does also seem to indicate that some sins might be more serious than other sins. John 19:11 records Jesus saying to Pilate, "...[T]he one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin." (New International Version, emphasis added).

But just what are the "greater sins" today? I find it interesting that society seems to rank sins. Among the sins that society currently (at least in the U.S.) seems to rank among the worst are pedophelia, child pornography, and drunk driving.

Again, I am in no way defending these things. I reiterate that sin is serious, and it must be dealt with seriously. At the same time, are these things simply among the most serious of the sins du jour? (Just a note--du jour is French for "of the day", as in a restaurant offering a "Soup du jour"). It seems to me that society as a whole--and Christianity--has gone through considering various sins as worse than others.

It wasn't all that long ago that adultery and divorce were considered among the most serious sins. Then it was abortion. Then it was committing homosexual acts. Granted, these were probably not thought of as bad by overall society in general as they were in the church, but the influence of the church on society has been waning over the past several decades. It seems as though now society often influences the church as much if not more than the church influences society--even in matters of considering things good and evil.

But let's be honest. For the most part, isn't sin sin? I believe for instance, that pedophelia is abhorrent. But so is murder. So is rape. So is adultery. So is idolatry. All of these are sin, and they are among the things that caused Jesus to have to die on the cross in order for us to have the hope of forgiveness and eternal life.

And I find it interesting that in the eyes of society in general, if I were to rank the sins I've mentioned thus far in this writing from worst to not as bad, the list would probably look something like this:

1. Pedophelia
2. Child Pornography
3. Murder
4. Drunk Driving
5. Rape
6. Abortion
7. Homosexual Acts
8. Adultery
9. Divorce
10. Idolatry

Now, there may be some people who would disagree with me as to that list, and admittedly, most people would probably change the order of some of the things on that list. But in general, I think it gets the idea across.

Look at that list again. It seems interesting to me that numbers 6-10 would be considered to be by many people not even sin, even though the Bible specifically calls them sin. And of the top 5, the Bible specifically mentions only 2 of them as sin.

I again must reiterate, I believe that all of those 10 things are sinful. But what I am getting at is that our society seems to have turned things upside down--especially with number 10, idolatry.

What if the Church really took seriously the Biblical prohibition against idolatry? When the Bible says that we should have no other gods before the One, True God, do we really believe it?

When Jesus said in Matthew 22:34-40 that the greatest commandment is that a person should love God with all his/her heart, soul, mind and strength, and that the second greatest commandment is to love other people as we love ourselves, He said that those two things sum up the Law and the Prophets.

Could it be that the way to love God with everything we've got is first of all to surrender ourselves to His will and let Jesus Christ be the Lord or boss of our lives, thereby dealing with the sin of idolatry? Couldn't it be that once we love God by surrendering to Him and letting Jesus be our Savior or boss, He will help us to better love other people? Couldn't it be that through loving God and through better loving other people, we will be empowered to be better witnesses for Him? And couldn't it be that through being better witnesses for Him, more people will come to Him and we would therefore be dealing more effectively than we are now with the other 9 items on the above list?

Perhaps it's time for people of Christ to re-evaluate priorities and be salt and light to a dying world by offering it Jesus, instead of mainly wringing their hands and taking strong stands against the sins du jour, whatever they may happen to be at any particular given time. Stand up against sin, yes, but perhaps we need to spend more time focusing on surrendering to the will of and serving the One, True God through Jesus Christ.

Prayers and Miracles -- Just Wondering...

2007-12-17T08:49:00.000-08:00

I believe in prayer. I believe that the Bible tells us to pray. I believe that God still performs miracles. I believe that when He performs miracles in our lives, it's not because we are more loved by Him than other people are, but it's only through His grace--the same grace by which He saves us through the atoning work of Jesus Christ.

But lately, I've been pondering a certain aspect of prayer as it pertains to miracles. Have you ever noticed how quite often, prayers are requested for people who are in some sort of need of physical healing?

I've noticed that many, many prayers are requested (and hopefully are actually prayed) for people, even when the people are critically ill. But then I've noticed something else--it seems as if the moment a person actually dies (I guess except for if someone is praying that life-saving procedures such as getting a heart re-started), the prayers seem to focus on comfort and peace for those who have survived the death of the person who'd been being prayed for.

In the book of 2 Samuel, chapter 12, David stops praying for his son's life once he learns that the son is dead. Maybe that's why we generally stop praying for a person once that person is dead.

But The New Testament gives several accounts of the dead being raised to life. Are we implying that once a person dies, all hope is gone? Is that Biblical?

Or are we simply acknowledging that if a person dies as a Christian, he or she is much better off being with Jesus than being here and subject to suffering and pain in this earthly existence?

Just wondering...

The Presidential Campaign

2007-12-01T11:45:00.000-08:00

A few months ago when I watched the first Republican Presidential debate between (I think) at least 9 candidates, I was surprised by how many candidates there were and by how many of their names I didn't know. I think I knew the names of almost all of the Democratic candidates.

I've done two things since the debates for both parties began a while back: I've watched at least parts of debates from both parties, and I've come to the conclusion that as a whole, the Republicans more closely stand for the things I stand for.

Another surprising thing to me was that after watching the first Republican debate, I really kind of liked what Mike Huckabee had to say and how he handled himself. But, especially at that time, I didn't think much more of it because he wasn't one of the (as the media called it) "top-tier" candidates. But at least I after that first debate, knew Huckabee's name, and I knew I liked most of the things he said. At the same time, I've seen enough political debates in my lifetime to know that on any given ocsasion, any particular candidate can have a good showing or a poor showing. So I made a note in my mind to keep an eye on how Huckabee did the next time I saw him in a debate.

Again, I was surprised at how well he did the next time. I'm not saying that his was the "best" showing of the debate, but in my opinion, he deserved to at least be taken seriously, and I was a bit bothered that the next day's media reports basically gave the most recognition again to the so-called "top-tier" candidates. Many comments in the media about Huckabee over the next few weeks would point to the idea that he is simply "unelectable."

So, let's fast-forward to the past couple of weeks. Suddenly, Huckabee is running neck-and-neck for the lead in the polls in Iowa--the first state to voice for its choices for the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates.

Suddenly, I started to think about Ronald Reagan. In late 1979, he was considered by many people to be "unelectable." Even by the time he was officially nominated by the Republicans to be their candidate in the 1980 election, many people thought Reagan was too conservative to ever be elected in the general election. But not only did Reagan get elected, he was elected by a significant margin, and was re-elected by an even larger margin 4 years later.

So, why can't the same thing happen with Mike Huckabee as we look towards the 2008 Presidential election? I believe it is possible that the same thing can happen. I believe that we ought to look closely at this man and his candidacy and judge it on his merits rather than looking to see if the media and the current polls consider him to be a "top-tier" candidate.

It seems to me that his campaign is gaining some momentum, and I for one, am taking his candidacy seriously. In fact, although I'd never contributed financially to any Presidential candidate's campaign before, just the other day I joined "Team Huckabee" by sending in a contribution of $20.08.

I say let's give Mike Huckabee a fair chance. As of now, I believe that he is the best candidate out of any of the Democrats or Republicans who is officially running for President.

1445 Miles into the Past

2007-11-21T09:07:00.000-08:00

We just returned from a 1445-mile, 8-Day trip into U.S. History. My main interest is in U.S, Presidential history. My wife wanted to see Colonial Williamsburg, which I also thought would be interesting. While we were in Williamsburg, we were also able to see the other two parts of the "Historic Triangle"--Jamestown and Yorktown.

All in all, it was a very educational trip. Chronologically, here is the list of the places we visited:

November 13th

Monticello (home of Thomas Jefferson)

Michie Tavern (historical meeting place in Charlottesville, VA)

November 14th

Montpelier (home of James Madison)

Ash Lawn-Highland (home of James Monroe)

November 15th

Berkeley Plantation (home of William Henry Harrison)

Arrival at Colonial Williamsburg with short time of touring

November 16th

Private tour of Sherwood Forest (home of John Tyler)

Short time of touring of Colonial Williamsburg

November 17th

Main day of touring Colonial Williamsburg, including the following:

Horse-Drawn Carriage Tour

Palace Tour

November 18th

Attended 9:00 a.m. Worship Service at Bruton Parish Church in Colonial Williamsburg

Short Tour of Yorktown

Short Tour of Jamestown (including Ferry-Boat ride across the James River)

Harpsichord Concert at the Capitol Building in Colonial Williamsburg

November 19th

Stopped at Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, VA and saw the graves of the following:

George Pickett (and other family members)

J.E.B. Stuart (and other family members)

James Monroe (and other family members)

John Tyler (and other family members)

Jefferson Davis (and other family members)

Toured the Woodrow Wilson Birthplace and Museum in Staunton, VA

Lord willing, I will have the opportunity to expand on some of these experiences in later Blog postings, and perhaps even add some pictures. But for now, I will leave it at this.