Apostasy and Apology

(Please forgive the alliteration in the title.)

An associate of mine has announced to the world that he has left the Christian faith. He has done this by way of a blog that also proclaims his new religion of love, love, love. In addition to explaining the abandonment of orthodox Christianity, the blogger is also seeking to proselytize.

His post may be found here:

My Journey from Christianity to Love

Another known associate of mine has sought to give a defense of the Christian faith in response to the pantheism or panentheism that is being propagated by the blogger of love. It is well worth your time to engage his ideas. The link is below:

A Response to My Journey from Christianity to Love

Obamaballoon

While attending 4th of July festivities on the VMI parade grounds in Lexington, Virginia, I noticed a small, blue, helium-inflated balloon tethered to a family’s picnic blanket. Two Obama stickers were afixed on opposite sides of the balloon (two stickers for a congressional candidate were also attached). I couldn’t help but be transfixed by this floating ball of blue. The balloon had done nothing noteworthy, and had in no way made any impact on our nation or me—yet, I could not avert my gaze. The balloon drifted about so elegantly that I could feel hope springing forth from deep within my soul. A calm happiness brought a smile to my face as I thought, “Is this the change I’ve been waiting for?” This lighter than air, blue-colored idol is sure to save us all. Oh, that the gaseous expanse of nothingness inside stay hidden so that we may all rejoice and delight in the ignorance of our choosing.

Indiana Jones and The Purveyors of Naturalism

It has taken me some time to comment on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. An initial viewing left me too disheartened to give a reasoned response to the highly anticipated sequel. I wanted to rail against George Lucas and his attempts to destroy the fond remembrances from my childhood while seeking to ruin modern cinema in the process. Why the incessant need to add to classic works with inferior sequels and prequels? Didn’t The Phantom Menace teach anyone a lesson?

Why not ruin some more great films? Perhaps, Lucas should team with Coppola to make a new Godfather. Or maybe use Jar Jar Binks-like effects to bring back Bogart in Return to Casablanca.

My annoyance wasn’t direct towards Steven Spielberg. He hasn’t made a film I’ve enjoyed since Saving Private Ryan, but at least he was making new uninspiring films. Even when remaking an old movie or adapting a short story, Spielberg wasn’t cheapening his past films. But it only took the influence of George Lucas for the former blockbuster wizard with diminishing directorial skills to participate in the slaughter of one of the great film franchises in the short history of cinema. Thus, the CGI fetishist of The Phantom Menace teamed up with the man responsible for such underwhelming film endings as seen in A.I., The Terminal, and War of The Worlds.

Specifically, there are four scenes that ruined the film for me:

1. The refrigerator
2. Mutt swinging vine to vine
3. The drive over the cliff onto a bending tree branch (hasn’t this happened to the Road Runner?)
4. The flying saucer

For days, I complained about the movie and those scenes. The film was too over-the-top. It was too corny—too unbelievable. But I was challenged by a few who enjoyed the movie. Defenders of the film would usually bring up how strange each of the original three movies had been. The Ark of the Covenant being opened at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, the hearts being ripped out in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and the cup of Christ that gives life in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade—all very strange indeed. Michael Medved writes in his positive review of Kingdom of The Crystal Skull, “If the over-the-top ending leaves you scratching your head, well, that’s true of the earlier Indie movies, isn’t it?”

Yes and no.

There seemed to be a difference between the fantastic story elements of the first three films and the new sequel. It just took me a bit of time to figure it out. The first three films had supernatural elements while the new film strictly deals with the paranormal. Even though paranormal events can’t be explained by scientific means, these phenomena still occur within our natural world. The supernatural, however, deals with that which is outside or above nature.

UFOs, aliens, and spaceships could all operate according to natural laws. They could even one day be explained scientifically. Some naturalists even take the idea of aliens starting life on earth more seriously than the idea of the earth having a divine being as a creator. For an example of this, check out the conversation between Richard Dawkins and Ben Stein in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The Ark of the Covenant and the cup from the Last Supper both contain supernatural elements based in a belief in the great other—a god who is beyond nature. The Thuggee cult that makes sacrifices and uses mind control also has a supernatural bent with hints of demonic activity—again beings that are beyond nature.

As someone who has rejected naturalism, I am much more comfortable with the events of the original trilogy. This is not to say that I believe in all the supernatural elements of the films, but I do find the idea of God acting in this world, and even demons interacting in the natural world, to be more plausible than a giant alien spacecraft taking off in a South American jungle.

Now, all four of these films are works of fiction, and I understand the place of the paranormal in fiction. I have enjoyed quite a few films that deal with UFOs and space aliens. The problem arises, for me, when a franchise that was grounded in a worldview that allowed for the existence of the supernatural uses paranormal activity interchangeably with the supernatural. It is as if to say that supernatural and paranormal events are both equally fictitious or that supernatural events are really just paranormal events that have yet to be explained. An earlier script for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is reported to even suggest that these aliens were the original reason behind man’s belief in the divine.

Naturalists view much of the historical record of the Bible as myth. The notion of little green men seeding life on earth becomes more plausible than a Creator who rises from the dead. Mix science fiction into a film franchise that uses portions of historical record for story elements, and the truth get lost somewhere. Confusion sets in. God becomes as much a fairy tale as E.T. Any film that adds to this confusion should be rejected.

Next time you wanna make a sequel, George, try mining the depths of the Howard the Duck franchise.

Google Ron Paul Supporters

I am sure there are many sane supporters of Ron Paul living across the United States of America. Too often the charge is thrown about in casual conversation that Ron Paul is crazy. Many then assume that any followers of such a nutcase must be certifiable themselves. These accusations have little merit. Congressman Paul has many useful ideas to bring to the level of national discourse. A great number of intelligent citizens agree and have thrown their support behind the long shot candidate.

Occasionally, as with any candidate, you will meet a Ron Paul supporter who makes you wonder how this nation’s mental health profession has failed on such a grandiose level.

Below, you will find a short clip of a Ron Paul supporter that I met in Tennessee on Memorial Day. I make no claim that this woman is crazy. I also make no statement in support of her views. I shall simply, as any good libertarian should, let the woman enjoy her freedom of speech.

Dr. Chuck Norris

Liberty University Commencement

John McCain, Newt Gingrich...Chuck Norris?

Newty, it’s cold outside…

As the curmudgeon who turned on every light in his house during earth hour this year, I’m usually not one to lend much credence to the notion that mankind has tossed the planet on the barbecue. Newt Gingrich, however, has given me pause. If the man who engineered the 1994 Republican Revolution is willing to share couch time with Nancy Pelosi to stress the importance of climate change, well, maybe I should listen.

In the early ‘90’s I heard a lot about global warming. At school, we were constantly made aware of how rotten the poor planet had become. Landfills were overflowing into barges being sent to sea, our sewers were emptying into once great rivers, the ozone was fast becoming a distant memory, and Dan Quayle was feeding baby seals to the elderly. Times were grim. So grim that I was convinced my sister would kill us all every time she sculpted her bangs with a can of hairspray. You could just feel the temperature spike when the aerosol hissed from the can releasing the ozone assassin into the air.

But we didn’t all die. So I just enjoyed the warmth.

Then came real-life Captain Planet, Al Gore, and his crusade to stop global warming. The former vice-president has assured us that the earth is warming due to greenhouse gasses created by mankind. There is no room for debate. Science tells us this is the truth. Anyone who disagrees is considered to be “like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the earth is flat. That demeans them a little bit, but it’s not that far off.”

What I have learned from Al Gore is that when science tells you something you can be assured that it is fact.

This authoritarian view of science can be confusing. In April of 1975, Newsweek published a story titled “The Cooling World.” Peter Gwynne wrote that scientists were worried about an imminent little ice age that would come over the planet. The authorities on climate were so sure of dropping temperatures that they were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

So I now know with certainty that global warming is caused by man, and we should be in the midst of a new ice age. The scientists in 1975 couldn’t have been wrong, because science is fact. There’s no room for debate.

Then last month, an article appeared suggesting again that our planet was headed for an ice age. The evidence for this was a delay in a sunspot cycle. Geophysicist Phil Chapman says, “If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.” And once again, a scientist fears that agricultural productivity will decrease. An ice age could be very bad for us humans. All of this should also be set in the context that scientists believe that ice ages are actually the norm for our planet.

Where do these facts leave us? Global warming can’t be questioned. Who wants to be compared to a Neanderthal that thinks the earth is flat? The coming ice age can’t be questioned. After all, Mr. Gore has insisted scientists know what they’re talking about.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that humans have been warming the planet with their poisonous greenhouse gasses while solar and astronomical forces have been cooling the planet. Instead of killing ourselves with our pollutants, we are actually saving ourselves from a frozen tomb.

Newt and Nancy shouldn’t be encouraging us to find clean forms of energy; they should be admonishing the nation to be as inefficient and wasteful as it can.

We need to act, and we need to act now. The time for debate has passed. Glaciers will soon be spreading across the northeast unless we raise the level of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere. If you don’t believe it, then you’re about as crazy as the ones who think George W. Bush won the 2000 election and the ones who question evolution.

Everyone can do his or her part. Leave your lights on when you go to bed. Leave your car running all day while you’re at work. Together we can use global warming to stave off the coming ice age.

Pinellas Pentecostals Protecting Pious Property

I once made the unfortunate mistake of working with self-proclaimed “Baptecostals” at a private school in Pinellas County, Florida. I took the job with the misunderstanding that many different denominations were represented by the faculty. In actuality there were about 5 Baptists and 20 some Charismatics—talk about diversity. One red flag that should have warned me things would not work out between the school and myself was the view most on staff had of their sanctuary.

This particular school is a “ministry” of a Southern Baptist Church that has turned its back on Southern Baptist beliefs. The sanctuary of said "Baptist" church is used by the school for weekly chapel meetings. I knew all of this upon entering into employment with the organization. What I did not know, however, was the value given the church sanctuary.

The morning of my first Friday as the school’s new substitute teacher, I stopped by a Starbucks on my way to work and picked up a cappuccino. When I arrived at the school, an office worker informed me that it was chapel day so I should meet my students in the church sanctuary. As the office worker and I walked towards the sanctuary, she kept eying my cappuccino. She herself was holding a Styrofoam cup filled with coffee made in the school office. I wasn’t sure if I was being disloyal in choosing a corporate-caffeinated beverage over the down home flavorings of the office java—which tasted much like what I presume boiled water filtered through kitty litter would taste like. But then the office worker made a point of dropping her cup in the trash. Maybe she was just jealous. After we entered the foyer I noticed a sign hanging next to the sanctuary doors that read: NO FOOD OR DRINK. This slightly annoyed me, but I understood why an organization would want to keep certain rooms clean to the point of barring all food and drink. What really bothered me though was the reasoning posted just below the actual prohibition: THE SANCTUARY IS HOLY GROUND. Forgetting for a moment whether or not the sanctuary was actually “Holy Ground” what is it about food or drink that interferes with holiness? When Peter instructs the church to be holy as God is holy, does a person disobey this command any time he or she eats a Big Mac or throws back a Pepsi? I don’t have a problem with rules even if they are arbitrary, but I do have a problem with arbitrary rules being given a sense of moral justification by the use of religious language. Could that sanctuary be set apart unto righteousness? Sure. Does that mean a student can hinder such holiness with a bottle of Evian? I don’t see any scriptural support for such an argument. Since I was not needed in the sanctuary, and I didn’t want to just throw out four dollars of liquid, I asked if I could just stand in the back by the doors. I thought the matter was more like the rules for no food or drink in the classrooms—students were prohibited while teachers were above the law. Little did I know the issue dealt more with the seriousness with which the school viewed the sanctuary. Permission was granted so I stood in the back and drank judgment on myself.

A few months later after I was taken on as fulltime faculty I was required to attend teacher’s devotions every morning. These devotions educated me on the thoughts and beliefs of Charismatics. I had always thought that speaking in tongues and jumping up and down and barking like dogs was about all the charismatic denominations cared about. I was wrong. These meetings every morning informed me that Charismatics also care deeply about ecumenism and assaulting the inscripurated revelation of God (more on these in later posts). Another topic that came up frequently was the church sanctuary.

“I remember as a teenager when the Spirit fell on this church,” one teacher reminisced. “We didn’t ask for it. We weren’t lookin’ for it. It just fell on that sanctuary.”

Another teacher noted, “There is just something special about that sanctuary. I get a strange feeling every time I even walk by that place. I know that’s the house of God.”

“When I walk through those doors I know I can feel God’s presence,” said yet another faculty member.

It was becoming clear that the school viewed their sanctuary as something close to a physical home of the Spirit of God. Never mind the omnipresence of God—this sanctuary was where He could be found. Forget about what happened when the veil was torn in the temple in Jerusalem—let’s throw up a new veil made of wood and glass doors.

I wondered how “holy” the school administration would think the sanctuary if they knew all that the school basketball stars did with the fair maidens of the cheerleading squad in the restrooms adjacent to the so-called “dwelling place” of the Spirit. Or how “holy” the sanctuary became after the “sweet aroma” drifts in from the men’s restroom after the math teacher with bowel problems expels his bacon cheeseburger lunch. I guess I’ll never know.

A fuller understanding of the school’s exultation of poor architecture came when the headmaster, also the pastor of the church, spoke at this year’s first chapel.

“The most important thing here—more important than grades or sports—will be your experience with Jesus,” the headmaster began. “How many of you have had an experience with Jesus? Now, I’m not talking about some prayer or having someone pray with you. I’m talking about a real experience with Jesus. The kind of experience where you talk to Jesus…and he…talks back. Anyone ever had that?”

The room was silent until a lone kindergartner raised his hand. Then some high school students laughed.

The headmaster continued, “I know some of you have had problems with demerits in past years. Well, the experience I’m talking about can change all that. When you have this type of experience you won’t want to act up in class anymore or break rules.”

And then the headmaster spoke of his new temple, “Do you know where you can find this experience? Right here in this sanctuary. Every week you’ll get a chance right here in this room during chapel. This is where you’ll meet the Lord. This is where you’ll hear him speak. This place is special.”

Later I would hear in a more Bible-centered church a message on John 4. I thought it was interesting how the passage related to the confusion about worship being propagated at that private school. John writes about a discussion between a Samaritan woman and Jesus. During the talk, the Samaritan woman brings up one of the differences between the Samaritans and the Jews:

“Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
(John 4:20)

The Samaritans believed that Mount Gerizim was sacred. They had even at one point built a temple there that was later destroyed by the Jews. They believed that the physical place of Mount Gerizim is where one worshipped God. The Jews, however, believed that God should be worshipped at the temple in Jerusalem.

Jesus replied:

“Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshippers.
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
(John 4:21-24)

The physical place where one worships does not matter. Those students can meet God just as easily in a Dairy Queen slurping unholy Blizzards as they can in that “holy” sanctuary. It is an egregious error that the headmaster did not point his students towards scripture instead of a building with cheap carpeting and uncomfortable pews. From the written Word of God they can learn of their Creator and learn that they can call on Him from anywhere in the world.