The Kingdom Come

With all the talk about the president of the United States coming out in favor of same-sex or "gay" marriage I thought I'd address this topic from a few perspectives.

THE LOVE AND PRIVACY ARGUMENT

As a guy, a man married to the same woman for 22 years, and the father of an 18 year old daughter whom has dated a few guys -- I want to offer this "guide to guys".

Girls seem to think guys are difficult to understand, but really, most guys are fairly simple. Most guys are driven by a few things but not necessarily in this order:

(1) Food
(2) Play (games, sports, whatever)
(3) Sleep (mainly naps)
(4) Um...Sex

After that, guys can be broken down into types (mix and match too):

First, by "Post-Christian" I simply mean that much of Western civilization is becoming increasingly secularized, moving away from daily expression and adherence to Christian principles. So, in understanding that meaning, when I address the topic of women in a post-Christian world I want to contrast that with the roles, attitudes, and behavior of women in this post-Christian world. I will address both Christian and non-Christian women.

Let's establish the roles, attitudes and behavior of women when most of Western civilization was still Christianized. We'll consider this the period from roughly the 4th century to the early 1800s. This encompasses both the decline of the pagan empire of Rome and the conversion to Christianity of the last of Europe; England itself.

Um, before I go any further; let me say I have been happily married for 22 years to the same woman. She is a confident woman. She has worked outside the home during our entire marriage. We have also raised an intelligent and assertive daughter. My point is, no one should attempt to claim I'm chauvinistic or misogynistic. My wife and I have been partners in life. I am not her dictator.

Well here is my obligatory New Year's message. Typically, such a message is supposed to be full of platitudes and overly optimistic ideas. We're supposed to talk about the blessings of the previous year and the hope for the dawning.

But are we naive to think the new year will be any different than the previous if we do nothing different? This is where we are usually urged to make a resolution; a resolution to do or not do something in the new year.

Every year around Christmas time, some Christians grapple with how or if to celebrate Christmas. Typically the initial argument against Christmas by Christians is that it is not a Christian holiday but rather is a pagan holiday. Further, Protestant Christians may oppose the Roman Catholic connection to "Mass" as in "Christ's mass".

However, whatever Christmas was originally, many people; including non-Christians see the holiday as a specifically Christian holiday. So much so, that there is often a hesitancy for public institutions to overtly connect to the holiday, often using the phrase "Happy Holiday" rather than "Merry Christmas". Interestingly enough, etymologically; these institutions don't really get away from the religious overtone by using the phrase Happy Holiday because the word "Holiday" comes from the phrase Holy Day (ref).

After all the last bites, those left in tupperware tombs and tinfoil firkins. Passes passed and touchdowns danced. Aunt Sandy sighs and waves and hugged. Rug rolled up, door last shut. Another years gathering gone.

The couch calls the listless lingerer. Final sip of watered-down tea. Eyes heavy shades falling fast.

Comfy corner pillows piled high. Palms wrap the waning light. Sleep quickly comes. Dreaming of teaming doors and well wax floors.

Waiting in another line as signs mural. Another register opens by the girl in white. I'm next! I'm next! Cutters creatures and all. Brown hats and baseball bats, all things new.

Forty-five percent off. Scarves and knives for haves and have-nots. Get a receipt for things bought to return on Monday. Black Friday! Black Friday!

Alarm goes off. Wives and kiddies jiggle. Wake up! Wake! it is 12AM. Time to go. This place and that. Baseball bats and brown hats. Fifty percent off shoes.

Tryptophanic Dream. Extra piece of pie, whip cream. Rub your eyes. Time to go. Stretch and yawn to the approaching dawn. Black Friday! Black Friday!

During the days of American slavery, a tactic often used to keep the slaves from organizing was to keep them resentful of each other. To do this, the slave owners would often perpetuate a type of class warfare -- the so-called "house slave" versus the "field slave". The "house slave" was depicted as uppity as if they were better than the "field slave".

This tactic has not ended. It is demonstrated every day in the Liberal policies of the Democrat Party when it convinces most black Americans that it is uppity to be a conservative AND black. Somehow, the Democrats have convinced the majority of black Americans that black Republicans are merely "house slaves". The Democrats have been successful in getting a majority of black Americans to stay unorganized and oppressed. The Democrats have been successful in keeping a majority of black Americans on a new kind of plantation -- a plantation of the mind.

Unfortunately, some so-called "black leaders", like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have spent years helping the Democrat Party keep black Americans on the plantation of the mind.

Since the 2011-2012 Republican presidential campaign is high-lighting America's Social Security system, I thought it fitting to address the issue from a Christian perspective. In the debate, Texas governor Rick Perry has called Social Security "a ponzi scheme".

Contender, Governor Mitt Romney and the other Republican candidates have taken Perry to task saying among other things; "Our nominee has to be someone who is not committed to abolishing Social Security but who is committed to saving Social Security".

Here's the problem before we get into the biblical issues; the candidates are telling us we need to stop "Obamacare" before it becomes a fixture and cannot be undone, yet at the same time, we're being told that we can't touch Social Security because it has been around for over 70 years. See the inconsistency with their arguments?

So, I was looking at an "About Us" page of a church where already the presiding pastor has a reputation as an authoritarian elitist. Typically on these "About Us" pages, you will find something about the people who attend the congregation, even if they keep it private enough to not reveal the identities of the people. I understand that. However, this church's "About Us" page only listed the leadership of the church. So, the church is only "about" the leadership?

A female, non-Christian reader was upset with an article addressing the biblical concept of wives submitting to their husbands. She classified it as a form of slavery, probably thinking that I would recoil and try to water down the submission factor. But instead I accepted the premise and even expanded upon it by saying, I have often thought how people in America are born into a slave system even today. I mean look at it, we can't simply find a plot of land and build a shelter and live our lives. Instead, most Americans must find work doing the bidding of another person. We are locked into paying rent, mortgages, utilities, not to mention taxes. What if I didn't want to be part of that rat race anymore? Where could I go to be truly "free"? If I went to the mountains, eventually some government official would find me and throw me off "public land" and perhaps fine me for squating.

This question seems easy enough to answer. Perhaps a person would say a vice is clearly "sinful" whereas a bad habit is something you ought not do but you do it without thinking. Or further, that a vice is something you willfully do with full knowledge of its negative (and possibly sinful) ramifications, whereas a bad habit is something you do without realizing it, that also is negative and possibly sinful.

Could it be that a vice is controlling and addicting; something you cannot simply stop such as smoking or drugs? Maybe a vice is always negative whereas a habit can be positive or negative?

I've asked one of my daughter's friends this question but purposely requested they do not answer me until more time passes. Please ask yourself the same question...especially next time you or someone else names some action and says, "This is my only vice". What is meant by that?

As my family returned from church today, there were many questions. You see, the sermon was on homosexuality and how it is no worse a sin than any other sin. I mean, the Bible does say sin is sin right (Rom 3:23)? This confuses many people because then who are we to say anything about anyone's sins; specifically homosexuals if we are equally sinful? I mean, what about the Bible verse of removing the board out of your own eye before trying to help another person remove a speck (Mt 7:2-5)?

It irks me when supposed "experts" blather on and they are given a status that doesn't represent the typical. For instance, the entire Harold Camping issue or like an article I read today where a man named Ian Morgan Cron wrote on FoxNews.com, an article titled: Five Words That Could Save the Church (source). Save it from what? The author answers the question with this phrase: "Five words could prevent the public brawls between Christians who differ in their opinions on social and theological issues." Who says we Christians AREN'T supposed to "brawl" to some degree over doctrine? Actually, the Bible says just the opposite as the author of this piece concludes.

Okay by now many of you have heard the world is going to end today or that there will be a "rapture" (a taking away of all the Christians) to heaven. As a devout Christian, whom I hope many of you know as a consistent example of a Christian, I want to ASSURE YOU that there will be no rapture or end of the world today.

The man who has been going around claiming there will be a rapture is Harold Capmping, an 89 year guy who predicted the same thing in 1994...and yet here we are. What was his explanation why the 1994 rapture didn't happen?

"[It] didn't come true because of a mathematical error...I'm not embarrassed about it. It was just the fact that it was premature...[but this time] there is...no possibility that it will not happen." - source

Something piqued my curiosity after helping my high-school aged daughter with an essay. The essay was about the human propensity to oppress others and why. My daughter's task was to pull from 3 former reports to determine the answer. The 3 former reports were on the book Of Mice and Men, the events of the Holocaust, and the rule of Saddam Hussein. What is the commonality within these 3 that might explain the human propensity for oppression?

In all 3 cases, the oppressors had a sense of inferiority and the feeling of threat.

Athanasius was the 4th-century Christian theologian known for his epic and unwavering stance against anti-Trinitarians called Arians (source). But even more, Athanasius was often alone in his defense of the historic Christian Faith. I don't mean that Athanasius was a rebel who had a doctrine different than the rest of Christianity, rather that while Athanasius was consistently in line with the teachings of historic Christianity, there were times in his life that the "leaders" of the segment of the Church of which he was part abandoned the historic Christian doctrine.

On the other side of this is the TRUE rebel who reads the Bible and claims they alone have come to a conclusion different than every other Christian in history. Such a person often comes up with a doctrine never taught in historic Christianity and when people reject this doctrine and the person advocating it, the person may go into "Martyr Complex" mode -- woe is me, I'm being persecuted for Christ's sake -- when in reality they are being opposed for their OWN sake.

Take a moment to compare these two videos. The first is Emergent/Postmodernist Rob Bell complaining how Christians shouldn't be telling anyone they are in danger of going to hell.

The next video is Todd Friel from The Way of the Master, comparing different "doctors".

http://www.pinpointevangelism.com/Bullhorn.htm

Now you can friend TKC on Facebook. My policy there will be to "friend" anyone that requests (even hyperpreterists and those who validate that heresy). I want the TKC Facebook extension to be a place where we can get everything out in the open. Unlike how some of my detractors will do podcasts or write blogs where they speak falsehoods but give no opportunity to challenge them, I have ALWAYS had a policy of transparency when it comes to allowing people to challenge what I put forth (just read all the comments by people who don't like what I say about Rob Bell or about automatic infant salvation :) ).

So, come friend me on Facebook and lets have OPEN and HONEST interaction.

CLICK HERE: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001477399226

First, when people hear the word "heretic" or "heresy" they often feel some pity or sympathy for the person being called a heretic. Perhaps it is human nature to feel sorry for and root for the underdog. But is there EVER a right time to describe something as a heresy and the person advocating it a heretic?

To start, we must define what we mean by heresy. In the Christian sense, heresy is NOT simply something that goes against the teaching of those in control. Again, people often visualize the "big bad institutional church" forcing people to believe what the institution is teaching or else be labelled a heretic. However, to correctly define heresy we must decouple ourselves from the idea that the "church" is corrupt and trying to impose beliefs on the poor "followers". This wrong idea, may be a misunderstanding of Protestantism, where a person envisions themselves as a "little Martin Luther" taking on the Roman Catholic Church.

DEFINITION OF HERESY

The text in the Bible that perhaps most succinctly defines heresy is Romans 16:17-18.

I've been a Christian since 1984. I, like many long term Christians have made many transitions over the years. Christians in general seem to go through some observable stages. First, an excited zeal where they desire to share their new faith with anyone and everyone. Then the person may go through a stage where they adamantly defend whatever Christian tradition/denomination they are a part. Next, a sort of apathy or burn out settles in where the person begins to feel like they are merely going through motions. Sometimes at this point or before, the person challenges the status quo of whatever denomination they are a part. Some people simply drift away and never really practice their faith openly.

In the 15th and 16th centuries Europe experienced a series of world changing revolutions. Christians may think of it as the time when the Protestants opposed the Roman Catholic Church but there was more to it than religious revolution. The populations were over throwing centuries of aristocracy (rule by kings, queens and other "royalty").

More than anything else, this is what appears to be happening in the Middle East, so-called "Arab countries". But it is more than just Arab countries since not all of the nations where these revolts are boiling are actually "Arab". For instance, Iran is mainly Persian with only a 3% Arab population. Bahrain is considered non-Arab.







But clearly, the Islamic world is experiencing a similar time that Europe experienced centuries ago.

The fall of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak supposedly marks a significant change in the Arab/Muslim world. Some media is touting it as freedom and democracy coming to Egypt. But I wonder if that illusion will actually materialize. For instance, back in 2006 Gaza and the East Bank (in "Palestine") held what at the time were considered historic elections. In the lead up to the elections, the United States touted the elections as marking freedom coming to Gaza. Even when Israel tried to postpone the elections for fear of more radicals taking over, U.S. president George W. Bush pushed for the elections to go forward. After the elections, many outside of Palestine considered it a failure since the winning party was Hamas, a group classified as a terrorist organization -- even by the U.S. (ref). Immediately after the elections the U.S. and other countries stopped financial assistance to Palestine.

Ironically enough and to bring it back to Egypt, Hamas was founded in 1987 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The turmoil in Egypt may be a precursor to a revolution that will finally bring the Muslim world into the 21st century. On the heels of revolution in the Muslim country of Tunisia, Egypt as well as Yemen may be heading down the same path.

Young, college educated adults no longer want to live in the 7th-century. However, this doesn't mean they want to toss Islam, only that they want to be able to be human before being identified by a religion.

In states and cities all over America and Canada from the early 1960s back most businesses were closed on Sundays. This mindset stems from what has been called "The Blue Laws". These laws were enacted to respect what is often considered the Christian Sabbath; doing no work on Sunday, a day of rest. It is meant for a time of reflection, worship, rejuvenation. The Sabbath was given to humanity as a gift from God, otherwise corrupt men would work people on every day until they die. It was never meant to be a restriction but as a freedom from a life of otherwise constant labor.

As Sam Frost's unofficial nemesis I thought it fitting to address the major change going on in his theological world. As many readers may know, Frost is a dynamic "theologian" that had been a major leader within the Full or Hyper Preterist movement. I say "had been" because in 2011 Frost has recanted hyperpreterismⁱ.

First, we should define what we mean by "hyperpreterism".