Image

As a business student of sorts (I chose to minor in it in college, but I am constantly being educated in the rest of life) I am beginning to find my everyday adventures to stores and restaurants to be crowded by many business-like observations. For instance, today I stopped in at a small Chinese restaurant near my house to order some amazing sesame chicken and rice. The food was awesome. However, as I sat there waiting for my food to be prepared, I looked around the room and noticed the walls were, for the most part, gallingly white. Sure there were a couple small 8"X6" pictures and a beautiful 3-foot fan with horses painted on it, but in a room about twice the width of your average household hallway, that's rather spartan fare.

If this was my room, I might sleep and wake and not really care about the plainness, or the cracked paint, or the door slightly off its hinges leading into the kitchen area. Given the awesome smell of the place, I nearly avoided caring about the appearance at all. However, image is something which is very important to address, especially when your business will be entertaining customers for anywhere from one to thirty minutes. In the five minutes it took me to order and receive my food, I envisioned at least 7 or 8 things I could do just to that room that would make customers want to stand around longer, maybe even sit down and eat (which every restaurant owner should know is a great thing, despite the behavior of rundowns like McDonalds).

The point of this, apart from a not-so-subtle hint that I'm for hire for business consulting (and cheap too), is that public image is something which I think not many of us are aware of.

Now as a quick note, I will allow that people from foreign cultures who were more than likely born and raised in foreign cultures may have different ideas of image and customer relations and general personal interaction standards. It isn't just chinese restaurants that have image issues, however.

It occurred to me today that image issues- or more specifically, a perceived lack of concern for public image- may well be a symptom of postmodernity (by which I mean the philosophy and many manifestations in Western culture). After all, one of the key messages of postmodernism is that the individual and the subjective perspective are king. Every person's experiences and morals and worldviews are unique and equal and cannot be involuntarily subjugated to the views of another. In this worldview, no one has any overarching reason to care about what others think of them. Apart from fulfilling our own needs and wants- such as impressing members of the opposite gender and earning cash to buy stuff- there's really no reason why we would allow any other person or group's ideas of normality or rightness hold sway over us.

This viewpoint has unfortunately led us to the point where music largely comprises a vast mass of make-upped whiner-guys, 2-bit autotuner rappers, and chaotic and nonsensical orchestral compositions. Our most popular artists might even be good at singing if they aren't lip-syncing at concerts or weren't chosen because they were fashionably good-looking. World religions at this point (which unfortunately includes Christianity) have degenerated to the extent that even "intolerant" "absolutist" religions (like Christianity and Islam) can't seem to hold onto their holy books when they've been exposed to iPods and cell phones for too long (someone should do a medical study on that).

Postmodernism has, in short, attempted to entirely lay waste to the founding pillars of culture and...well...life. When everything is equal, nothing is valuable.

As a further result, individuals are exempted from concern for what others think of their day-to-day actions and opinions (although, of course, others are not exempt of our opinions of THEM). We have begun to believe that, for instance, profanity and vulgarity are acceptable so long as enough people use it- or at the least, others shouldn't take offense at what I myself find innocuous. We have begun to dream that what we accept as normal activities and items in our lives are inherent rights, which when infringed upon by unsuspecting villains must be defended with harsh words and hard feelings. We have reached the point where, as the detective says in the movie "Crash," we no longer talk to each other, bump into each other in our daily lives- we just crash every now and then. We have so insulated ourselves in the rightness and goodness of ourselves and our thoughts that we no longer have any regard for the impact of our lives on the lives of others- except, again, when we feel we must impact them voluntarily (for their own good).

This voluntary rejection of others and self-glorification is responsible for immeasurable damages to our friends and neighbors and brothers and sisters around us.

We as people cannot afford to go on like this. For one thing it inevitable that the purposeful nothingness of modern culture will be eventually consumed by a powerful positive ideology. For another, the bloodshed can only increase as we stop talking and caring and simply act and respond.

We as Christians cannot afford to forego a wise and discerning and purposeful consideration of our individual and group public image to the world. We MUST represent positive ideology, good intentions, real faith which creates real actions, and a 360 degree consideration of our lives and impact. (Necessary note: this includes environmental impact, but I'm thinking recycling, not "stop having babies to save earth")

The Bible is full of passages exhorting us to avoid being stumbling blocks to others and lead in wisdom. We are reminded over and over of the dangers of an unrestrained tongue which will destroy. We are told to love- which often means giving more than we receive. And all of this falls under a consideration of image.

"What do people say when they see my life?" is not a question we need ask ourselves so that we can blithely bathe in any real or imagined praises others could be showering us with. The question of image is a very necessary question which we must constantly address in our lives. It is a question which I would especially say must be addressed in the institutional body of Christianity today (private goodness generally being outweighed by public foolishness).

Specifically, it's time for us to start considering how others can be uplifted and led to praise God by what we do.

Fake Reality

The idea of a reality show initially seemed like a brilliant idea. The general audience was, I think, becoming fairly disenchanted with the fictional nature of most television shows, and so someone (whether it was the writer of the movie "The Truman Show" or one of the day-time talk show hosts) decided to present real life to people.
The execution (and by this I do not, unfortunately, mean "killing" but rather "carrying out") of reality shows has proven to be rather the opposite of this "reality."
The first obvious problem with the idea of reality shows is that, unlike in "The Truman Show," today's (fortunately) unknown individuals are quite aware of the cameras jammed in their faces at all awkward times of the day. This leads inevitably to a great deal of showboating, as displayed in so many shows where conflicts are blown out of proportion and emotions let loose over the most absurd of circumstances (e.g. "Oh. My. Goodness. She totally just used. my. comb. I hate her- I hope she dies. I'm going to ruin her life")
Second, it is quite obvious by this point that, much like the ignominious Jerry Springer, it is quite obvious by this point that reality show heads must be choosing their participants quite purposefully. Your average reality show seems to consist of an ethnically balanced group of young, mostly attractive individuals. The girls are all either immodest/ditzy, immodest/women power, or modest/women power types of people (with the rare addition of a quiet nice girl who's going out with the seemingly nice guy who ends up cheating on her). Guys range from your dirty jock to the nice-ish guy to the player.
All of them tend to portray an average IQ level normally associated with 10 year olds (especially in conflict situations). It is also rather likely that, like Jerry Springer, the "reality show" folks are encouraged, if not contracted, to start fights and cheat on each other. After all, "reality" might be far more boring.
This is all, of course, saying nothing of such gems of ideas as "Hey let's put these 4 married couples on an island and keep setting up scenarios where we try to get them to cheat on each other," or Big Brother's idea of cramming a bunch of either rich and "ghetto" girls and boys into a mansion and letting them hash things out.

The question might be posed, then- if reality shows fail to portray reality- or at least what most of experience as reality- then why do they have such a widespread appeal?
I have an opinion which I haven't researched (preferring to ignore reality shows on the whole) but which seems to make sense:
Reality shows provide not only the escapism of any TV show (no matter how lame); they also provide validation and relative-worth-association options. Since reality shows purport to portray "real life individuals," the events and personal expressions of the people we watch on TV can provide a couple of very helpful services to us. If an individual has the same character flaws as I do, but seems to lead a good life anyway, I receive validation for my character flaws (more often known as "sins"). If somebody is just a scumbag on the show, I get the opportunity to cast myself against their monstrous shadow and, by association, paint a pretty character of myself to myself and others. After all, I may have dumped so-and-so, but at LEAST I didn't cheat with Helga (as if there would be someone named Helga on a reality show) first like Scott did.
Again, the ability to validate and paint ourselves in the perspective of the characters on a reality show is much more powerful because, as the TV networks tell us, what we're seeing is "real life" and "real people."
This is the same sort of power I think the daily talk shows previously had, but reality shows are much more "in the moment," and they're also dressed up with story-lines and plot twists as opposed to the public-confession-booth style employed by talk shows.

When it comes down to it, escapism itself is not a bad thing. If it was, fiction in general would not be Christian. However, escapism which not only lies to the audiences but also promotes a general lack of morality through validation and attempts to paint the world in ways that make our sins seem normal is not okay. It is an abuse of God's creation, art in general, and it is a waste of whatever bits of talent are employed in the industry. It's time for us to turn our backs on reality shows and wake up to the reality of life around us.

Why Christian is More Than "Nice"

I had the chance to read selected passages of Augustine's City of God this semester and came upon some fascinating insights into the judgment of virtue which help with one of the big questions of today.
A number of times people have said to me, "Well I'm a good person" or "But I know so and so who's not a Christian but he's a good guy." The implied objection seems to be that if one can be a "good guy" without being Christian isn't that close enough? Doesn't that validate them and make them- who knows- OK for achieving the afterlife, even if they don't do silly little rituals like going to church and praying?
Well certainly not for Augustine. For Augustine virtue was determined by the relation of the body to the soul, and of the soul to God. Augustine believed that the body must be subjugated to the soul- that is, the soul (also sometimes understood as mind) must seek to prevent the body (flesh) from pursuing its own desires. This, like Aristotle's concept of virtue, can be understood basically as a prudent discernment and temperate moderation between the excesses and deficiencies of different virtues- moderate eating instead of starvation or gluttony, for instance.
However, the soul must ALSO be subjugated to God in order for any virtuous restraint on the body to matter at all. For, after all, if a man restrains himself from what is considered sin, but does so in order to glorify himself (whether openly or subconsciously), then the virtue has instead become a vice. In fact, Augustine goes so far as to say that without submitting yourself to God, how can you ever even truly do a good act? All that you do, in that it is bent towards your own glory, will be twisted from a good purpose to a self-promoting one.
This is not unlike the discussion of faith and deeds in the Bible- faith without works is dead, but works without love, without faith in God, is like "a clanging gong or a clashing cymbal." And that is the key here: Whereas Aristotle's concept of virtue is that each man does good because he naturally seeks his own good and it therefore advances his life's pursuit, for Augustine we are only virtuous if we act in love and submission to God. With such an understanding then truly only Christians might be counted virtuous people.
Now this sounds harsh- after all, didn't you help that old lady across the street? Don't you give money to the local food shelter?
I am glad that many people see the need to give and to be good in this world. I am ashamed as well that many so-called Christians do not feel such a need, instead being content to haplessly rest upon the imagined laurels of a non-judging God. However, I think a fair self-assessment of most people's charity would reveal that good acts are, more often than not, done that you might also receive something in return. I'm not talking material goods, here- I'm talking honor; glory; recognition; goodwill. Most of us can recognize that that is what motivates us a lot of the time.
True Christianity on the other hand, as Augustine understands it (and as it is) recognizes that God has already saved us. We don't need to DO anything to earn salvation. What we do in this life out of loving faithfulness to Him is in thanks for what He has given us. Is it necessary? Absolutely. A true faith and belief in God must produce good works. But this idea that simply doing good things for people is a merit badge you can gather to redeem at the pearly gates is ridiculous.
The real tragedy of the non-Christian "nice" people is that they understand to a limited extent how to show love. Much like Christ talks about how a father, when asked for a fish by his son, will not give him a snake- so we understand to a limited extent what is right and just and loving. Why? Because of 2 things: 1. God is always at work in our lives; and 2. We live in a culture which despite its best efforts has a fairly strong grounding in Christian ethics. What is normative even for non-Christians, even for vehement atheists, is often only so because of Christian influences which shaped this country and its people. But tragically, they don't care. By doing good and then rejecting God you are saying, "I do good so that you may glorify ME, not my Creator."
This is the fundamental difference between a Christian and "nice" people. I will not cease to be thankful that God is at work in our world and often does good things through nonbelievers- but I am also not going to stop praying that those who understand good and have loving hearts might turn their hearts to the true God who gave them life.
I can think of few greater tragedies I have witnessed in my life than the friend who is so "good", and yet so absorbed as to ignore God, or pay Him only lip-service but no heart-service. I only hope that God will turn their hearts to Him so that they may truly live virtuously in view of the eternal salvation awaiting us.

Christians and Culture Pt. 1

The following is an article I wrote in a "Christian Goth" group where someone asked whether it was possible to be Christian and "goth" in light of some of the more extreme "gothic" people.
This is also my first written address to the idea of culture and counter-culture, an idea I hope to expand (so comments and opinions are very appreciated).


"Christian AND Gothic?"

I found the group's ("It's possible to be a Goth, and Christian") description to be a very well-put argument for goth in the very broadly defined sense of the term, but more specifically what it seemed to be advocating was not "goth" but a counter-culture against superficiality and hypocrisy.

Let me start by outlining the danger of counter-cultures. Being against that which is wrong is a particularly Christian concept, the sort of concept that modern-day pluralists and your average cheerful evangelical simply can't wrap their mind around. Muslims have no problem being against beliefs contrary to their own, and yet somehow we of the true Christian faith lack the courage to be so on a grander and more definite scale (standing, after all, on such a strong foundation). The problem counter-culture almost inevitably encounters is that it becomes obsessed with non-identity. It starts out by challenging the falsehoods of the (usually) more popular cultural norms, but in a short matter of time finds itself trapped by the need to constantly be different. Demagogical pundits run into the same problem by getting trapped by their own rhetoric so that they can never afford to post a moderate opinion.
So modern Goth, while it achieves one goal in its rejection of pop culture, also finds itself trapped in its non-associative identity. For a counter-culture to truly succeed it must, soon after its rejection of the popular, construct a definite and lasting identity of its own. The Reformation is a good example- first we rebelled against the popular beliefs of the Roman Catholic church, and then a number of Reformers over 100+ years established the central beliefs of mainline Protestantism, which are still held to this day. Sure, there are lots of different denominations, but those developed mostly later on, and largely due to the influence of outside ideologies. The core tenants of Protestantism established by Calvin still thrive in a decently large number of churches (Ironically, it was often people, like Luther even, who because they were simply counter to the excesses of the Roman Catholics, ended up establishing churches outside of mainstream Protestantism which actually still agree with much of the Roman Catholic belief system). Goth, likewise, has encountered a problem very similar to the Protestants. However, today's culture makes very little space for absolute identity and beliefs, and so one might argue that Goth as a culture of its own has been stunted. I would argue that Goth as a culture of its own stunted itself. Because Goth has associated itself as necessarily counter-cultural, it finds itself stuck in a paradox. Simply by naming itself as a theme, a group to associate with, it becomes a culture. And yet, at the same time, it claims to embrace all those who are counter-cultural.
But counter-cultural to what? By casting the net far and wide into the deep waters of malcontent and righteous anger, Goth has dredged up not only the innocent and pure who are disgusted with superficiality, but also the disturbed, the vampiric, the bleeders and the magickers, the satanists and the chaos theorists. What to do, then, when such a lot is dressing the same way, listening to the same style of music, and claiming the same cultural name? Well, in the Protestant tradition you split and form your own church. But because Goth has associated itself as simply "against pop culture", technically speaking it has no grounds to cast out the evil in its ranks. By the broadly accepted definition of goth, a satanist and a spiritist have just as much right to be goths as a Christian wearing black clothing and makeup and listening to H.I.M. (figure out what his name means if you will). They are, by definition, running counter to the popular culture as well. They just happen to also be against Christianity, against even common morals and accepted sanity in some cases. By supporting the rights of the individual to express themselves how they see fit, Goth has attracted some (note the caveat) of the worst people around. But who will cast them out when your culture embraces them in its very doctrines?

Just two other problems I have with Goth then, apart from the paradox and problem above. One is that the gothic mode of fashion and distinction is, like all fashion and art, a way of hiding what lies beneath. The gothic makeup industry only differs from popular makeup magnates in that it seeks to focus on the dark, on the impure, on that which is considered unattractive, but it still seeks to change your face. It still seeks to achieve a particular ideal by altering your appearance, by layering a mask of white or ash or clown cover upon your natural features. A truly counter-cultural order would simply be done with appearance and go natural. It is only by rejecting the superficiality of makeup entirely that one truly runs against the grain of pop culture.
Second problem: The obsession of shock and discomfort is, as some have pointed out, not a Christian ideal. Yes, you're going against pop culture by having 15 piercings, 12 tattoos, and a padlock in your left ear. But if you're doing it simply to shock people, simply to scare people, then you're not being loving as Christ called us to be. Christ certainly did not modify his body in any way. Christ did not show up in town with black hair, white makeup, and a lip piercing. And Christ certainly did NOT wear bondage leather, listen to songs about vampirism, and then wander into the temple wondering "WHY do they hate me?" Christ was counter-cultural, but he was so by way of reason and truth. He brought true religion to fight against the heresies being distributed by most of the factions of the day.

So if you want a descriptive definition of goth, you're not going to have much luck. There are simply far too many points of view standing under the same umbrella (in the rain, inside the cemetery, at midnight). But if you want to know how to be a faithful Christian AND live counter to the popular culture in a way that both rejects falsehood and defines truth, then I can help you.

What Sort of Faith?

The following is an article I wrote last year after reading stories of some of the persecuted Christians around the world- the purpose of the article is to challenge modern Western Christians with a model of real faith.


What Sort of Faith?

I have written a number of articles over the past year concerning the nature of truth, and how we as Christians ought to view God’s Word and the Christian religion. The quest for truth is a complex, never-ending and extremely challenging calling that all Christians must recognize, and so it is very important that we who have this luxury of the academic study of God’s Word in peaceful countries should readily avail ourselves of such opportunities joyfully and wholeheartedly.
But what of those who are in other countries around the world, countries whose cultures and mindsets are hostile to Christianity? What of the Chinese Christians who cannot even legally worship and who suffer constant persecution in the form of arrest, torture and even murder for their work in spreading the Word? We talk constantly in the Western world about sending missionaries to other countries. We embark on mission trips to countries in order to bring both physical help and God’s Word, and to embrace the culture clash that tears us out of the comfort zone of our everyday life in a country blessed with so much. And yet, when it comes to our own faith- as we pass the days in multi-million dollar institutions of higher education that constantly fill and challenge our minds with knowledge of God’s creation- many of us would as soon prevaricate and back away from the absolute truth of God’s Word as stand up for it to our relatively benevolent interrogators.
When it comes down to it, most of us don’t even have to be interrogated to surrender our commitment to Christ. Many of us have been drawn to churches that have swallowed the humanistic individualism of the Western culture hook, line and sinker. The prevailing mindset of individualism and subjective spirituality in the Western world - within which it is confessed that any person who so much as hints at devotion to any divine creature is a good spiritual person – has so thoroughly blinded the once-faithful Christians that many of us really aren’t even sure whether the Bible is the true Word of God. Western culture has spoken into Christians’ open ears the lies of humanity bent on glorifying itself, and we as Christians more blessed with physical blessings than any others in the world have turned from God and accepted those follies of men as our own.
The disparity of our faith when compared to our brothers in dire situations all over the world is utterly reprehensible. We in our “enlightened” spirituality, so tolerant of all viewpoints false and perverse, seek to travel to foreign lands thinking to educate the barbarian in the ways of good Christianity, and yet we have already traded such Christian faith as is good and true for the nonsense of a trivialized culture that stumbles after wind and takes up each new doctrine as a golden prize, only to leave it aside soon after as a rusted plaything. Surrounded by a culture epitomizing the proverbial house built on shifting sands, we have chosen to build our house in the same manner instead of building upon the solid and unchanging rock foundation of God’s Truth.
No wonder the world laughs at our faith! On the one hand in countries where death and humiliation and torture are accepted dangers to zealous Christians, the Word of God is sought out in humility and joy. It is there, where the line between life and death for those who worship the True God is most apparent, that the fire for the Lord burns brightest. It is where men must hide their Bibles and those who teach are routinely arrested and killed simply because of their beliefs that the real conviction of God’s Power and Truth reside in the hearts of men. What a humiliation, then, that we “enlightened”, blessed, and gifted individuals- being raised in peaceful, immensely wealthy countries where any religion can be practiced openly and safely- should reject and challenge the authority of God’s Word, and proclaim truth in sermons of our own devising. While men and women and children throughout the world die for the True Faith we devise new heresies and shortcuts for Christians. We market ourselves to an indifferent people in the hopes that those already overfilled and sick by a truly self-glorifying culture will think our way of life and worship is more fun than theirs. We soften our words and hide God’s judgment in songs of happiness and salvation that requires no obedience so that a world already turned inward on its own desires will identify Jesus as some sort of nonjudgmental buddy. And it is shameful.
I was reading excerpts from the second volume of “Jesus Freaks”, a series of books telling the stories of martyrs in other countries, and came across an especially convicting passage. This passage tells the story of Pastor Li De Xian who has suffered repeated arrests and torture for his preaching of the Word- he was arrested 15 times just between October of 2000 and May of 2001. Despite the persecution, however, Li De Xian continues to teach and fully expects future persecution, saying “We just follow [Christ]. There are many thorns, but we are just injured a little on our feet. This suffering is very little.” Most convicting, however, was the comment his wife, Zhao Xia, made: “Don’t feel sorry for us,” Zhao Xia says of their lifestyle. “At least we are constantly reminded that we are in a spiritual war. We know for whom we are fighting. We know who the enemy is. And we are fighting. Perhaps we should pray for you Christians outside of China. In your leisure, in your affluence, in your freedom, sometimes you no longer realize that you are in spiritual warfare.”
We as Christians who are so surrounded by blessings that we cannot even begin to count them must take to heart the stories of the martyrs. More than that, however, we must realize what their mission is. They are not out there preaching Christ in order to make people feel good about their lives. They aren’t out there to be culturally relevant- in fact they’re being purposefully counter-cultural in proclaiming God’s Word. As Jesus said in Matthew 10, “All people will hate you because you follow Me, but those people who keep their faith until the end will be saved.” They certainly aren’t risking their lives in order to market a God who calls us to worship at our own convenience, always gives us what we want, and is guaranteed to make us feel good about ourselves. They preach, and they suffer, and they die to spread the message of a God who gave us life and offered salvation to a world that rejects Him in its very nature. They bring a message of One God, Three in One, using the whole and complete True Word of God given to us in the Bible.
We Western Christians can only pray to achieve such a zeal for the faith in our lifetime of luxury.

Christian truth in a world of post-modernism

The following is a 2-part article I wrote last year about Christian truth. The first section engages Christian truth vs. other religions. The second part seeks to apply the same principles to Christianity and its many denominations.

Article 1: “Application for Preaching the Truth: Christians Only”

In the realm of the academic it has been deemed suitable to discuss ideals, morals, standards and creeds in hypothetical terms- or if you’re a dreamer, objective terms. The idea is that people of different backgrounds and confessions gather together to learn from each other’s experiences and grow in their knowledge and understanding of the world. This is not, I think, automatically flawed as a method of increasing wisdom in the world, because it is true that God’s creation proclaims itself to all, and so even those who are devotedly opposed to the true God will occasionally stumble onto truth. However, the fact that those who reject God nevertheless stumble upon the truth occasionally should in no way be a validation of their worldview. In other words- just because a man with a blindfold might be able to walk in a line on occasion doesn’t mean that we should follow him down any path (especially not a straight and narrow one).
This is a problem that we often run into as Christians (whether we acknowledge it or not) when we run to the embrace of events such as the World Religions Conference. The mission statement of the WRC is as follows: “We affirm the value of interfaith interaction, for educating ourselves regarding other faiths and philosophical traditions. The interfaith concept is a unifying vehicle, which can aid us in bringing the reformation of the world nearer to reality.” On the surface such a statement can be taken very innocently as an attempt to get rid of “all that divisiveness”. Surely, after all, we are all sinners and none can claim in themselves to know the truth about God. At least at this conference we can all join together to peacefully point out our views so that others may take them into consideration. And surely we can also through our heart-warming spirituality seek to make peace in the world and lift everyone’s hearts up in looking forward to the afterlife (or if you’re a Hindu, many afterlives).
The problem here that no one seems to get is that the WRC by its very name and symbols is validating the religious pursuits and ideals of its members. If all 7- no sorry, 8 if you include the token humanist they bring in to give his perspective- groups are already considered “Religions,” which is to say valid groups representing certain ideals, then there is no longer any real purpose served in coming to present your separate perspectives. There is no reason to change. Sure, it’s fun and informative- but in effect it becomes much like a group of fruit vendors who join together every year to extol their particular favorite fruit. All of them have chosen a particular fruit that they find to be especially savory, and none of them have any respect for vegetables (although they’ll let a token Brussels sprout vendor show up anyway), but at the end of the day they are all in fact supporting fruits. Whether you choose one or the other, you’re still eating fruit and it’ll be good for your body.
If the alarm bells in your head haven’t gone off yet, you need a new sound system installed.
What you have to realize- and what we as Christians cannot honestly avoid being convicted of as pariahs in a world set against the true God- is that the worship of God is not a human search for personal truth, or even corporate truth. It is most definitely not a quest for spiritual intimacy that fulfils you and gives your life purpose, nor is it simply a standard of morals you submit yourself to. This is the world’s definition of religion. This is the atheist’s definition of religion. By association, therefore, this is probably Satan’s favorite definition of religion. However, we as Christians must define religion in a wholly different manner. We must define religion as the pursuit of truth, not as WE see it, but as GOD teaches it to us. Religion is not just finding your spiritual niche, or fulfilling your needs, or finding a comfort in death. It is responding to One Eternal and All-Powerful God, who is evident in Creation and has created each and every one of us and watches over us all of our lives (however few breaths they may be). It is thankfulness for our very existence and praise for the free gift of Salvation (by grace, through faith). It is fear (yes, I said fear) and humility for our constant rebellion. Christianity is not “being born again” as the end of the story, but the constant regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, and being thankful as a chosen person for salvation. Our response must be seeking to constantly grow in the knowledge and understanding of God- and that God reveals Himself in the Bible. There is no truth about God which is revealed apart from God, and the sufficient truth for salvation is given to us in the Bible. It is the whole and complete Word of God, and its truth is testified to us in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who is at constant work in us to will and to work for our salvation. We as God’s servants may expound on the Word, and make it known and understood among the people, but insofar as any human phrase contradicts the Word of God, it is false.
I hit on something in particular in that last paragraph that I know the World Religions Conference would have a problem with- that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God. They would have you believe that each of us carries a unique and environmentally molded piece of truth, and that by coming together we can determine a greater, more holistic truth for people. They want to be the “unifying vehicle” which helps us to bring about the reformation of the world. Yet I must ask, “How can we do so if we as Christians are telling the truth, and they are lying?” A religion that denies or adds to the truth of God’s Word can not be a spiritual leader in this world. It may try as hard as it wants, and dress up its churches however it wants, but it will never be true. It has as its source false documents and prays to false gods, and so it will inevitably turn from God and lift up pursuits that are for man’s glory. A world that has no killing and is peopled with decadent folk who live to be 900 years old and who achieve great things that improve all of humanity’s lives may seem nice, but it is worthless apart from the true worship of God. I would rather live a few years and worship God gladly than sacrifice God’s Law to increase my life by one day.
Go to the leading atheists, and men like Karl Marx and Richard Dawkins, and they will tell you that religion is created by mankind to help us get through life, or to give meaning to our activities, or perhaps even to suppress the working classes. Their portrait of religion is much the same as their portrait of their own philosophies- simply another idea in a pile of “nice” thoughts on what we’re all here for. We all know this is false, and yet if we go to them and say that there is “some” God, and his name is Allah, Jesus, Shiva, or any other number of admirable spiritual creatures, then we’re just proving them right, and they have every right to laugh at us and kick us into the corner of the public eye. It is only a resolute, faithful, and God-centered Christianity, uncompromising in its acknowledgement of God’s truth and devout in all its human capacity in service to God that can possibly effectively lead the world to truth. We as God’s tools have the only key to the truth. We are the reformation.
When will we start to lead?



Article 2:
I feel it is necessary for me to continue to build upon the ideas set forth in this article from a specifically Christian perspective. I feel this not because I am divisive, but because I know that there is a constantly growing attraction to the sort of Christianity which I as a Christian must vehemently oppose. To continue the thought, then:

I said before that "It is only a resolute, faithful, and God-centered Christianity, uncompromising in its acknowledgment of God’s truth and devout in all its human capacity in service to God that can possibly effectively lead the world to truth," and also that "A religion that denies or adds to the truth of God’s Word can not be a spiritual leader in this world. It may try as hard as it wants, and dress up its churches however it wants, but it will never be true." While I think many Christians will agree with these statements at the basic level in relation to other religions- having often come from those religions or from atheism as part of their background- I also have no hesitation in predicting that most Christians would fail to apply these same sentences to the current chaotic mess of Christian denominations abounding throughout North America (as far as I know it is rather thoroughly peculiar to America and Canada).
Let me lead off my explanation with this statement: What I am engaging in here is a critique of institutions and systems of religious belief which are propagated by reverends, elders, youth pastors and the like throughout our God-blessed country. I am in no direct way laying slander upon the individuals involved in varying degrees within such churches, sheltering beneath their roofs from the storms of the outside. In other words, I'm rebuking the shepherds, not the sheep. That said, it is no less imperative for the sheep to recognize a false voice at their head and seek to change it or leave.
Disclaimers aside, I'll continue with an explanation of my belief. First, let me say that what I understand a system of beliefs to be (alternately known as a creed, a confession, or what have you) is a commonly accepted delineation of the understanding of the person of God, His work of Salvation, and our place and function in the world in regards to God and His Law. All of these beliefs are to be modeled on the Bible, which is and must be the sole timeless source of God's Word and Truth. According to such a definition, then, I make the argument that such a system of beliefs, truly modeled upon God's Word and never in contradiction to it, fairly may be seen as necessary beliefs that any Church claiming the mantle of truth must hold to. (The fact that such creeds and systems of belief are written by men, therefore, becomes irrelevant so long as all beliefs are proven in their consistency with God's Word). If you accept the above, then, you could also state fairly that a church that deviates from such a set of beliefs would be deviating from the truth of God's Word- and therefore proving itself false. If we as Christians are willing to say at any point that there is something unique, unprecedented, unparalleled, and incontrovertible about our system of beliefs in contrast to another false religion, then we have drawn a line in the sand (so to speak) and cast that other religion as being false.
Let's carry this forward. Most of the people I know will agree that, for instance, "The Roman Catholics, y'know...they're wrong. They're just wayyy out there in beliefs." Likewise, a reformed Christian might be willing to say "Those Jehovah's Witnesses are false" or "Those Unitarians are heretics." However, I have noticed that there is ALWAYS a certain point at which people become less certain about whether a denomination, or a particular view on a doctrinal issue, is wrong. Not everyone who disagrees with praying to saints seems to be willing to stand up for predestination, for instance. Or, not everyone who stands up for predestination is willing to say they should baptize infants. The problem here is that if you are searching for the truth of God's Word- the absolute, whole truth of God's Word- then there is little to no room for divided issues. Doctrinal debates have primarily developed over beliefs central to the integrity of our overarching Christian faith.
One example of this is predestination. If I say "Salvation is granted to me by God who chose me before the beginning of the world, based on His Grace and not at all on what I do and don't do during my lifetime," but someone else says, "I come to the Lord and believe in Him and He enters my heart," then we have reached a fundamental breaking point. See, according to my belief God chose ME, and there was nothing I could do about it. Salvation was given, not earned. The other person believes in a salvation in which he has to come to and choose, and that by doing so he will receive Jesus into his heart, who will then guide him through his life. His belief teaches us that we can only be saved if we choose God. The problem with this belief is that we're naturally sinful beings. The Bible specifically says that only those who have been called and in whom the Holy Spirit is at work are able to call God their Father, and believe in Jesus Christ. Long before that person entered his first church God was in his heart, even as he was perhaps worshiping other gods. God brought that person to Himself. If you differ on this issue, therefore, you are believing in a fundamentally different God. My God chose me before the world. Your god needed you to give that last 10% of effort so He could save you. These are different gods.
Likewise, my God presents a different character and comprehensive identity to me than the god of the market-driven evangelical churches of today. This evidence of this is that while my God was the God of Israel, who on many occasions in the Old Testament delivered His people from the nations by destroying thousands and tens of thousands, the modern evangelical god (let's call it the ME god) is a god who loves everyone everywhere no matter what they do so long as they're born again at some point in their lifetime. My God is the God who promises all throughout the Psalms to prosper the righteous while crushing the wicked (Psalms 1 and 2 are key examples), and my God is the God who gave Adam and Eve life and salvation freely and then left it up to them to follow Him by responding in faith or screw up by turning away. The ME god, on the other hand, will fix your life problems if you turn to him- in fact, he's just waiting and hoping and hoping that you'll choose salvation by coming to him so he can show you how wonderful he is!
The fundamental difference between the ME god and my God is that while mine manages to be both loving AND just (and, in fact, there should not be such a separation of terms but for the sake of a world that doesn't understand the real meaning of either I must make one), the ME god is simply a friendly free-handed spiritual being. It is, in essence, a humanistic invention, on par with the efforts of Mohammed when he decided he didn't like the religions of the day and proceeded to invent one that suited him.
Now before everyone piles on, I will say that there is still a vast difference between a confused Christian and a Muslim. From a foundational point of view, a confused Christian is at least attempting to fathom a real Trinitarian God- the problem is that they're doing so armed with secular philosophies, scientific 'realism', and a self-obsessed worldview. Yes, this self-obsession is natural to all humanity, and I myself am quite thoroughly at fault for similar sins. That, however, does not disqualify either myself from speaking, nor the argument from being valid. The fact is, the majority of modern denominations have at some point deviated from what is the true worship of God, with all its beliefs and creeds and confessions. They may have started off brilliantly, as did Luther's Reformation churches, but at some point they came to accept for various reasons a number of doctrines which are in fact at odds with the Truth of God's Word. This fact leads us therefore to realize that while such churches might be historically commended for their efforts, they are in fact in dire need of further reform.
I could go through a number of other doctrinal issues and explain how they, too, are fundamental elements of the Christian belief system and cannot be bent or broken. However, the point is, I think, sufficiently made: that we as Christians cannot afford to deviate from or prevaricate on any beliefs associated with God's Truth. There is truth, and there is falsehood. What is simply required is the willingness to discern, to test the spirits (1 John 4:1), to hold firm to and lift up the right and true Word of God above the lies of the world and Satan (Titus 1:9). Such an imperative is uncomfortable and inconvenient because it requires a perpetual vigilance against all the grand and subtle heresies that assault our churches, and it does mean that we must at times reject other systems of beliefs, and those stubbornly on the wrong side of the issue as being those who follow a false belief. This does mean that we as Christians must reject the beliefs and claims of some- perhaps even many- of the other nominal Christian organizations in our countries. This means, as well, that we as true Christians have a duty to go to those churches and guide the sheep, who have been misled by the shepherds, back to the truth. It also means that we must ourselves always be careful to examine our system of beliefs to ensure that we are following the true Word of God as well. To follow a false doctrine is no different from ignoring any other command of God (except, perhaps, for the shepherds who lead the sheep astray with such doctrines- their guilt I would think is the heaviest). I venture, therefore, as a sinful Christian who in no way can claim knowledge of the limits of God's salvation, that not all who are currently in churches that we consider to be false will go to hell. However, their earnestness must be turned to discovering the falsehoods integral to their church's worship of God, and they must continue in maturing as Christians in the knowledge of the Lord instead of stagnating in pacifistic indifference to doctrine.
My brothers and sisters, we cannot go on tolerating the blatantly ego-centric individualism sold to us by worldly philosophers that tells us that God is what you want Him to be, and spirituality is simply a matter of looking to some higher power for guidance. We cannot afford to allow earnest men and women of these false churches to earnestly follow their leaders off the straight and narrow path. It is not loving to do so. Abandoning our brothers and sisters to their beliefs under the guise of tolerance when we have been blessed with the truth ourselves is in fact sinful. It is our duty as those whom God has led on the true path, to also go to others who have been sold a bill of goods and bring them to the true path as well.
It is this duty which, by the way, fuels my intense criticism of non-denominational organizations in this country. There is a large and growing population of Christians (whether in name or truth) who have simply decided that it is better to befriend and tolerate than to pursue God's truth. Rather than deal with divisive issues and potentially lose friends, these churches have elected simply to avoid all associations entirely and isolate themselves from all debate.
I must ask my fellow Christians to consider this strongly in the next few days: Is it Christian love to tolerate a liar when he misleads your brothers and sisters, or is it Christian love to rebuke your brother when he sins, and uphold the truth? In more direct terms, if you know your friend is becoming a Muslim and yet you say nothing, is it really any different than knowing your friend is joining a denomination you know has wrong beliefs, and saying nothing about it? If convincing them of the truth would bring them back to the straight and narrow path, would you do it? Or would you let them stray under the guise of love?
I will finish with some suggestions as to what manner of conduct should be appropriate for Christians as we live our lives in thankfulness to God for His Salvation. For one, we must never relinquish the active maturing process which is integral to our being Christians- that is, we must constantly be seeking to better our faith, to flesh it out with the meat of God's Word. We must be willing to challenge false beliefs and false believers, and never compromise on issues pertaining to God's Word. While we as sinners must concede that we will never be perfect in this life either in beliefs or in actions, we nevertheless cannot afford to settle for anything less than the best standard of truth made available to us by God's working in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We must be willing to defend in all capacity's that standard of truth, and we must even be willing in love to challenge and rebuke the lies that take away from our belief in God. If we can do this- if we can uphold God's Word to the best of our ability, then there is nothing else that could be asked of us. This is not a matter of who looks the best in church, or who does the most good things. The fact is, so long as we are obsessed with the nearest-perfect worship of our God our works WILL show it, and the sins of the flesh shall pale before our work in building up Christ's church.
This is our call, and it is a call that we all must answer.

Bioengineering- Creating Our Own Problems (or self-fulfilling prophecy?)

I just read an article over at CNN.com which talks about 8 "wacky ways" to save the earth from global warming. Among these are:
1. Launch trillions of "frisbee reflectors" into space to reflect the sun's rays back at it.
2. Cover the deserts with white tarps to reflect the sun back.
3. Project "Permanent haze" (what's our forecast Mr. Weatherman? 100% haze, all day every day, with a chance of smog in the late afternoon hours and breathing difficulties by evening)

The last one is my personal favorite: we create MORE clouds by injecting extra sulfur into the air, KINDA like a volcano (because "doing what volcanoes do" has a real humanitarian ring to it)!
By creating more clouds, we reflect more sun back and keep the world nice and cool. Of course, there's the SLIGHT problem that it might dissipate the monsoons in Asia, which means just a tad less food for those non-Americans (or non-Canadians or non-Europeans depending on where your nationalistic spirit lies).
But hey...if China and India won't cooperate by cutting their emissions (read "industrial livelihood") down, then for the sake of humanity we the scientific savior may just have to start spewing sulfur at them.

Here's the thing: The whole premise of global warming is that humans, unaware (voluntarily or involuntarily) of what they were doing have been pumping trillions of scientific units of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, leading us to the point where we might all just die in the next 1-70 years (actually most of us WILL die in the next 1-70 years, but that's why we have babies). Humanity has therefore accidentally engineered its own damnation by scientific mistakes.
Now the question is this: do we REALLY want those same humans, albeit so penitent now, to start chemically assaulting our atmosphere with new things; do we really want to start covering deserts with tarps and launching "space frisbees" (UFO's?) to keep the sun off our dirt? Remember, these are the same enthusiasts who convinced us years ago that paper bags were irresponsible because they cost too many trees so we should use plastic...only to decide later that plastic was deadly to all of us so we must use paper (guess those trees lost their publicity). These are, notably, the same scientists who as recently as 30 years ago (in the grand scheme of things, not a long period of time) were absolutely convinced based on data in their time that the earth WAS COOLING and we WOULD DIE from it.
Maybe if we got all the world-famous chess players together and taught them all this science and applied their ability to think 10, 20, 30 steps ahead so we could maybe get an idea of what all these things might do to our plant and animal life- maybe then I'd be OK with assaulting a largely interdependent and vastly-complex-beyond-mere-human-comprehension planet earth with various interfering schemes.
Or maybe we should stop trying to "solve" the world and just go on living, not radically, but responsibly.

Tithing- The 10% Principle

So I was considering social justice recently, and welfare and government programs and the like, and it occurred to me to wonder, why did God set tithing at 10%? Well, that question I don't think I can safely or sufficiently answer, but it did bring to mind a question of how we might more efficiently manage the poverty issues of the United States.
See, mathematically speaking if 10 working individuals- variously supporting families or themselves (although the point is irrelevant here)- contribute 10% of their income to the church, then the church has received altogether a sum equal to the average wage of those 10 individuals. Moving along then, if for every 10 working individuals there is 1 incapable of working (again, regardless of family situation) then one might suppose that the church could give to that individual the sum equal to the average wage of the 10 working individuals.
But wait, you say- how will the church pay for its mortgage and maintenance? Well, I am of course supposing that the 11th individual, having received an average wage, will tithe his 10% back to the church.
It is therefore safe to say that 10 individuals, providing an average wage to an 11th individual worthy of it, will not only have safeguarded the 11th man for a year, but will leave the church with a full 10% of the average wage.
A visual of the math with random wages is as follows:
(in thousands) 30+40+45+50+35+55+80+25+50+45 = 455 (total wage)
455 / 10 = 45.5 or $45,500 (average wage)
$45,500-$4,550 (amount given to the 11th individual, minus tithe)
Therefore, 10 working individuals will support 1 man as well as, presupposing a humble church, building, perhaps one sixth to one third of the church's expenses for the year.
One might therefore suppose that according to this principle, a church with 50 working individuals may support up to 5 individuals while contributing (using earlier numbers) $22750 to the church.
Now of course one may assume that one of those individuals to be supported is the minister, so that leaves the equivalent of average wages for 4 more people. Presuming that in a church there might not be 4 individuals in need of that much income, the church building itself may be much sooner paid off.
This isn't even getting into the growth factors of families with many children who then begin working at a young age and tithing, increasing the income of the church. However, if we suppose that in a church of 400 people (as an artificial maximum) there might be 40 working fathers representing average families of 5 people (so 200 people, including wives who would stay at home), then that church would be able to provide the equivalent of a full average wage to 3 individuals/families beyond the minister.
Of course, one may note, the average wage in many if not most churches will exceed the poverty line established by the federal government, and so one might presume then that churches need not in fact provide the total of an average wage to anyone besides the minister whose job is in the church. This opens up the possibility that 40 working individuals can provide for more than 3 people who are facing hard times.
There are a wide number of factors that I am not even taking into account, such as the potential incomes of widows/widowers, wives, and bachelorettes (not a word?). The basic principal, however, seems to indicate that a church is able to provide for somewhere between 9% and, say, 20% of its population, based solely on tithing.
Coincidentally, according to 2004 statistics provided by CIA.Gov's world factbook, individuals in the United States living below the poverty line comprised 12% of the total population. Presuming (rather optimistically) that the poverty line represents the level at which basic subsistence ability begins to fail, 12% of the population is in dire need of a hike in income.
According to such a principle, then, presuming that the entire 12% does not in any way reflect those in prisons, those who should be in mental institutions, and those who simply refuse to work for lack of responsibility, it is reasonable to expect that, should the whole population of working individuals in the U.S. whose average GDP sits at approximately $47,500 should be sufficiently capable of handling that 12% of individuals quite handily according to the 10% principle.
Politically speaking, then, one might suggest that while it is far too optimistic to expect all individuals to attend and give to a church, a 10% tax on all those who do not might nevertheless fulfill the requirement of a wholesale 10% contribution to the needs of the poor. In order, of course, to ensure that the church-going folk are not double-taxed, their 10% tithes would be fully tax-deductible.
One might suppose then that an effective solution has been reached on how to sufficiently raise all those in the U.S. (this is an average for any given time) below the poverty line to above the poverty line.
It is entirely likely that many or most individuals living below the poverty line are in need of nothing near a full average income to reach the target of "above poverty line" and therefore a dedicated contribution of 10% across the U.S. would lead to excess money in the coffers of the government. This could certainly be used in other endeavors.

The basic point here is, a properly run tax system which requires a minimum 10% contribution of income from all individuals throughout the United States would produce sufficient income to more than provide for the poor in the country. Arguably this would get rid of the need for such complicated messes as welfare, unemployment insurance, and the like. The government would then need only to provide a number of things- a military, political offices (maybe less than we have now), a reasonable amount of public works such as libraries, prisons, mental institutions, postal service, and the like- in other words, that which fulfills government's basic Lockean role as protector of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I dare say that a populace given a relatively featherweight tax of 10% would be able to dig, say, another 5% out for such things (an estimated tax income of somewhere between 600 and 700 billion dollars. Or, lets be generous, a total of 20%. That gives the government, after dealing with the poverty line directly, a line of 1.2-1.4 trillion dollars with which to tackle other issues.
But I've almost forgotten- 10% of what the government gives back to the poverty line will come back to the government, so that's, for the sake of argument, say 120 billion more for the government to spend.
At 20% total out of your income each year, do you think MAYBE we'd be able to afford things like our own education no thanks to the public mess? And healthcare, for that matter? Personal management of income and funds is dependent on the work ethic of individuals, of course, but I think it's safe to assume that a dedicated population would have no trouble providing sufficiently for their children's education, health, and upbringing- especially if the government wasn't blowing so much money into the public education system that the price of education artificially inflates (cost of textbooks, for instance).
And, most importantly, such a 20% tax would not involve double-taxing churchgoing people who are already giving 10%- we would only be required to pay a 10% income tax on top of the 10% already given to the church.

I know, I'm asking for a lot of responsibility- but remember, where personal responsibility fails, regulation begins.

Predestination

Christianity is not a one-time one-stop occurrence wherein individuals are saved in an instant and thereafter need do nothing the rest of their lives. Christianity is a constant maturing process, a lifelong movement from milk to meat, from simple truths to complex doctrines. It is our calling, a necessity of our life as Christians (especially because we are surrounded by so many lies) to always seek to grow in our faith. I am simply asking that we remember that every day.

As I sat in philosophy class today, it came to me that there may be a particular reason why predestination seems to come up so often as the topic of debate in Christian interdenominational discussions. You see, religious belief, or ideology- which we might understand as a set of beliefs that determine who we are, what our place in the world is, and where we will be going- is an integral element of all humans. Even evolutionists have created an ideology of evolution- it explains who they are (chemical-biological structures that perchance fell together over billions of years); what their place in the world is (top of the food chain, for whatever reason); and where they will be going (dirt).
What is interesting to note, however, is that all ideologies also have some form of savior. In most cases that savior is the self or the species to which one belongs (such as the instance of Hitler's Aryan race). Evolutionists, while they do not foresee an eternal dwelling place, nevertheless establish their salvation prospects in the idea of improving humanity. If, that is, humans are continuously developing, evolving, growing, and progressing, then each person's efforts to improve the world creates a legacy for them which outlasts their name. Thus one might say the evolutionist has created eternal life for their name if not their body and consciousness.
Other religions likewise, despite various efforts at effecting some sort of supernatural hierarchy, inevitably turn back to themselves as the source for salvation. This is true of almost all common religions today, although it is certainly more evident among cults like Scientology than within Islam or various take-off brands of Christianity like the Mormons. While all such deistic religions create a supernatural, super-powerful god who operates to a varying extent within the individual and within the world, the impetus for salvation nevertheless exists either initially or finally within the individual, thus effectively giving the individual a power equal to or greater than the gods unto which they otherwise claim to submit.
How does this relate to Christianity and predestination then, you ask? One must understand predestination in order to answer this question. Predestination is the belief that before the creation of the world- before God had created anything at all- God chose His people. In other words, He predetermined those whom He would intercede with in order to bring to His salvation. It is important to note the stipulation that God did not choose based on what He foresaw happening amongst humanity- whether meritorious deeds or future decisions to follow Him- but rather that God determined whom He would save, and then in the course of these particular individuals' lives worked by grace through the Holy Spirit to save them.
Another important stipulation is that predestination does not, however, remove the free will of mankind to choose a master. Predestination does not seek to make a fortune-teller out of God, so that because we know God saves some and doesn't save others we can just sit back and watch what happens. Rather, predestination recognizes that God chose some to save and therefore in their lives He works to redeem them by way of the Holy Spirit working in their hearts. The Holy Spirit, insofar as we attempt to understand its actions, could be said to change the otherwise sin-obsessed bent of our fallen human nature in order that we, in loving response to God, choose to accept Him. Conversely, then, those whom God has not chosen to redeem would be allowed to exercise their free will to continue to follow their sinful pursuits which are the whole aspect of their human nature for all the days of their lives.
The question still has not been answered, however, as to why predestination is an integral element of the Christian faith. I humbly submit my reason here: Predestination is the sole element in the history of mankind which identifies God as not just the initiator or completer of our salvation, but rather as both. Whereas all other religions and ideologies determine man to be either the initiator or the completer of his own salvation, Christianity through predestination recognizes that all redeeming work is started by God according to His loving kindness and mercy, and is also completed by God. Our joyful responses as those redeemed by His grace are necessary, but are otherwise impossible outside His actions.
For a Christian therefore to reject predestination inevitably reduces Christianity to one belief among many millions of beliefs wherein a pile of good intentions are sabotaged by an ultimately self-glorifying establishment of man as an agent of his own salvation.
Now, an important point to establish here, and for all future ideas I write, is that in condemning Christianity which rejects predestination I do not seek to judge all Christians who reject predestination. Many if not most Christians have at best heard of predestination once or twice and certainly have never had the idea expounded to them (and how could they, in the watered-down evangelical society of today). In this sense, then, the weight of judgment falls not on individuals who have not yet comprehended and joyfully accepted predestination as a foundational aspect of their faith, but rather on those so-called reverends who have refused to provide such spiritual meat unto their flocks. It is therefore safe to say that my judgment of those churches who reject predestination is specifically a judgment of those churches. Whether the sheep will continue to follow their lost shepherds, or might rather choose new shepherds to follow, is a problem I will leave to the sheep.
-Kevin B.