I was hoping that the writers over at Imonk would write about this, but so far, they haven't. So, I will. Several things have happened over the past few weeks. First, some nitwit wrote about how Glenn Beck is a great man of God and some supposedly Christian magazine published it. Link Then on September 28, Pew Research published the result of a study that shows that Christians are painfully ignorant of other religions, and they're also ignorant about their own. Link I could go on ALL day about just that one. Seriously, MORMONS do better on Biblical knowledge than Evangelicals, Mainlines, or Catholics. If you're Evangelical, Mainline, or Catholic please take a second to hang your head in shame right now. Then my Facebook friend, Jon Trott, said " Oh, boy. What do you do when a man who has burned many, many people in the past via a ministry he equated w/ "God's will" for all his hearers... is about to start again with the same thing? Feelin' kind of sick right now." Immediately, John 10 sprang to my mind when Jesus talks about being the Good Shepherd and that His sheep know His voice and that they will flee from the voice of a stranger. So, what does that say about the people who follow after preachers of a false gospel like Jon was talking about, and who follow after the voice of people like Glenn Beck?

It seems to me, that the churches - all of them (us) are guilty - have gotten so caught up in politics and fighting the culture wars that they've stopped preaching the gospel entirely. Only 45% of respondents to the Pew Poll knew that the four gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Seriously? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? How much more basic can you get? In 1 Corinthians Paul chastizes the Church at Corinth for still not being ready for spiritual meat. If you can't even name the Four Gospels - guess what? You're not ready for any spiritual meat.

"My people are destroyed because they do not know me. Because your priests refuse to know me, I refuse to recognize you as my priests. Since you have forgotten the laws of your God, I will forget to bless your children." Hosea 4:6, New Living Translation How can the Church in America claim to know the Lord when we go off following anyone who preaches a message that tickles our ears and they cloak it in religious language?

If you are a pastor and you have wasted one nano-second of God's time spewing poltics from the pulpit and there is one single regular attender in your church who is over the age of 6 and with an IQ over 80 that cannot name the Four Gospels then your mouth should be washed out with soap. Actually, you should probably be taken out behind the church and beaten. Too many evangelicals think that God is spelled G.O.P. and some of the mainline denominations are just as bad on the other side, and pastors, you are to blame for a lot of that confusion.

And for those of us who sit in the pews, we're far from off the hook. Jesus said His sheep know His voice, and will flee from the voice of a stranger. How do you learn to know his voice?: "Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the LORD's anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you. Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up." Deuteronomy 11: 16-19 What does that mean? That means blow the six inches of dust that is apparently on all our Bibles off, open the thing, and READ IT. Elizabethian English is not "God's language." Throw the King James in the trash were it probably belongs, and find a translation that you can actually understand. Sorry, but most people living in 2010 simply can't understand Elizabethian English. Some of the words simply don't exist anymore. Personally, I favor New American Standard, New Living Translation, and Today's NIV. God gave us minds to think with. To not use them would be a sin. If we were even casually reading our Bibles, we would know that the Four Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Now, as a Quaker, we don't have clergy in the traditional sense. We believe that if we wait in silence that He will speak to each of us individually. Each of us has the right to stand and share what the Lord lays on our hearts. If someone is going off the deep end, each of us has a responsibility to pull that one back. Now, how do we know whether or not what we "hear" is really from him? Robert Barclay said the litmus test is does it agree with scripture. If it doesn't, it needs to be chucked. A friend of mine once told me that "As a Calvanist and a clergyman" that Quaker meetings worry him because we need to hear the gospel and be taught. (members of the C.S. Lewis Society can probably guess who said that) Well, it doesn't seem that a whole lot of teaching and actual preaching of the gospel is happening in traditional churches now does it? I resisted the urge to tell him I think Calvanists have too much starch in their shorts, and threw Barclay up in his face. But, here's the thing - thanks to the Pew Survey (and other surveys by them and Bana) it is apparent that the gospel isn't being preached in too many American churches. Therefore, we have a responsibility to educate ourselves. Read the Bible. Apparently, I could come to any one of hundreds of churches on Sunday morning and read from the Bhagavad Gita and most people wouldn't know the difference. How can you claim to be a follower of Jesus if you don't know what the man actually said? Study church history. A lot of the garbage that is floating around the church has been delt with before. We could save ourselves some serious aggrivation by studying church history, and our doctrine would probably be a lot sounder.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

That's the Apostles' Creed. I learned that in Catholic school many years ago. I have read a lot of conflicting accounts of how old the actual Apostles' Creed is. The version we have now probably dates to Charlemagne. Someone writing around the year 200 makes reference to a creed that is almost exactly the same (creator of heaven and earth is not in it) as the Apostles' Creed. This particular writing makes it sound like the Creed had been around a long, long, long time. Some people say it actually dates back to the apostles - hence the name - and came about in response to gnostic heresies. What I think we can agree on is that the Apostles Creed is one of the oldest - if not the oldest - statements of faith of the Christian church.

Here are some of my observations about the Apostle's Creed: Conspicuously absent is any reference to the inerrency of scripture. That might have a little something to do with the fact that when the Apostles' Creed was written the Bible as we know it had not been put together yet. Also absent is any reference to HOW or WHEN God created heaven and earth, the diety of Jesus Christ (which I absolutely believe in), any reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and blathering in tongues, the Rapture and all the various debates (post trib, mid-trib, pre-trib) that surround it. Actually, absent from the Creed is most of the subjects we like to get our panties in a twist over and shout that some other group or individual isn't really Christian because of their position on those subjects. Assuming for just one minute that the Creed was actually laid down by the apostles these are the points they considered non-negotiable. This were the points you HAD to believe to be baptized and join the church: God the father (check), Jesus Christ, only son our Lord (check), crucifiction and resurrection (check, check) and on down the line we go. So, if the apostles, themselves, the people who actually knew Jesus didn't think that those issues were important enough to exclude people from the church over - where do we get off doing it?

In Matthew 16:16, my favorite apostle (because he was pure of heart and loud of mouth) Peter says, "You are the Christ, son of the Living God." Jesus responds by telling him THAT is the rock upon which he built the church. That's even simpler than the Creed. Romans 10:6 says that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved. THAT is even simpler than the creed too. In my not always humble opinion, that is the definition of a Christian - someone who believes (and confesses) that Jesus is Lord (Son of the Living God) and was raised from the dead.

I was 18 years old when I came to truly believe in Jesus Christ. I was alone in my room (except for Spawn who was a baby) reading the Bible for the first time when I suddenly KNEW that Jesus was the Christ, Son of the Living God, and that He loved me enough to die for me. At that time, I did not say, "I believe in You and this entire laundry list of facts or trivia about you." I said, "I believe in You." In the more than 20 years that have passed since then, I've struggled with various aspects of faith. I've stopped believing in somethings, and learned (come to accept) other things. But, one thing remains constant: I believe in Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God.

Thinking of Mormons, Use Of The Word Cult, and Freedom of Speech.

Last Thursday, at my book club, we somehow got on the subject of Mormons. One of the book club members proclaimed Mormons to be a cult. I object to using the word cult. Because although it means: a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader (source: dictionary.com). How most people mean the word is: Any religion that I don't like. Also having had a loved one who was a member of a "cult (for lack of a better word)" I know that people sometimes do and say truly heinous things to supposed cult members and justify it by saying, "They're a cult." Supposed cult members have had their children taken from them, have been arrested, been beaten up, harrassed, had bags of flaming dog crap left on their porches, etc. Just to name a few things that I've personally seen happen to supposed cult members. I used to work with a lot of Mormons. Mormonism was majority religion in that work place. My Mormon co-workers told me about being out on their mission and having dogs set out on them, being sprayed with hoses, chased off with shot guns, etc - just being cursed at was a welcome change. Because of that I always try to be nice to the Mormon missionaries when they come to my front door. Anyway, a young girl appearing to be no more than 18 years old was sitting near by and heard all this. She is a Mormon. She got upset and cried. The girl's mother came and told us off. The person who called the Mormons a cult did offer to apologize, but the mother obviously wouldn't let her near the girl.

This led into a discussion of the First Ammendment which guarantees the rights of Mormons to - well - be Mormons, and the rights of others to be able to say things like, "Mormons are a cult." I am probably well on record that my First Ammendment rights are the ones I value most highly. As a member of a minority religion (that sometimes gets called a cult) I value both my freedom of religion and freedom of speech highly enough that I would be willing to die for them. But, with freedom comes responsibility. If you exercise your freedom of speech in an offensive manner - you accept that there could be consequences. You could get punched in the nose. You could lose your job - for instance I'm not allowed to do any kind of political campaigning or I'll get fired. When I worked for the DOC I couldn't speak to the media without permission of the Director, or I would have been fired. All kinds of bad things can happen because you opened up your big yap and said something offensive. In this particular case, it will probably result in my book club being thrown out of Barnes and Noble. But, there's another potential consequence that I didn't think of until later: It could affect my job - even though I am not the one who said it. I often go out in public and represent the agency I work for at local churches. Around holiday time, a lot of local churches have "Alternative Giving Fairs" and invite local charities to send a representative and set up displays. I have gone, on more than one occassion, to the local Latter Day Saints (Mormon) church to represent my agency. Now, I feel like I can't go there anymore. How the heck am I supposed to explain to my boss that I can't go to the LDS church lest I be recognized as being part of that group of obnoxious big mouths that called the Mormons a cult and made a young girl cry, and that recognition ends up costing my agency money in lost donations? And how is my boss supposed to respond to that? Will she say, "You can't participate in that group anymore?" Will I get fired? If I'm going to get into trouble with my employer I want it to be because of something MY big mouth actually said.

Of course, I'm assuming that the mother is Mormon, and that she will create a lot of trouble. But, she didn't say, "I am a Mormon." She said, "My daughter is a Mormon." The daughter could have moved - well, she did move, but not until after she got upset by our hate speech. Barnes and Noble should have put out the sign reserving the area for the book club, but they didn't. Not to mention - as loud as some of us are you really wouldn't have had to have been sitting right by us to hear us. But, the statement, "My daughter is a Mormon" tells me that the daughter is probably not only very young, but possibly a recent convert. So, how is an 18 year old/possible recent convert supposed to stand up and give a defence of her faith to a large group of people who are 1) obviously a lot older than her 2) more educated than her, 3) have just been calling her names (use of the word cult). Nobody would have listened to what the girl had to say anyway. When someone starts throwing that word around it means they've made up their minds, and they won't hear further discussion.

In fairness to my book club, we are equal opportunity pickers. We pick on Catholics - even though three of the group are Catholic. We pick on Presbyterians. We pick on Mennonites. We pick on Pentacostals/Evangelicals. We pick on Quakers. But, here's what we don't do - we don't hurl the word "cult" at any of those groups, and I'm assuming that we wouldn't - because using that word crosses a boundary of decency. Mormons often use the works of C.S. Lewis to defend their position on certain issues. The Great Divorce is a great example of that because it holds out the possibility of conversion after death - a very Mormon idea. It is entirely possible - as long as we keep meeting in a common place like Barnes and Noble - that a Mormon could come to participate in our group. And while we would undoubtedly pick on him/her - we pick on everyone else - would that person have to endure having the word cult hurled at him/her? If that person tried to give a reasoned defense of his/her faith (as most of my former co-workers were completely capable of doing) would that person be listened to, or would we just start ridiculing him/her about his Holy Mormon Underwear. And seriously folks - is wearing special underwear any stranger than say - circumcision? Wearing a covering? Dressing in plain clothes? Having to have a beard? Earlocks? Get over it.

Once upon a time not so long ago, I worked for the Salvation Army. First of all, I am always astounded at the people who don’t realize the Salvation Army is a church/denomination. Hello! SALVATION Army!

At one point, my boss told me that the reason you’ll never see a Salvation Army church with a steeple on it is because they didn’t want to be associated with the kinds of churches where if you had a real problem/need you’d be told, “We’ll pray for you.” They wanted people to know that the Salvation Army is a place where your physical as well as your spiritual needs could be met.

I thank God for my time at THAT Salvation Army (not all of them are so good). The employees from the Captain down LOVED the people we served through the shelter and the various outreaches, and lives were changed because of it. I think it is the first time that I really experienced God’s love as a tangible thing. I once asked my boss if anyone kept record of people who were helped by the Salvation Army who later joined. He said, “Where do you think we get our membership from?”

At the time, once of my friends was all caught up in the Brownsville heresy Revival. I really infuriated her by saying I didn’t think God wanted us chasing thrills and chills, which is all Brownsville and most revivals are - thrills and chills. That real revival meant carrying out the work He gave us to do, and I wondered if the Salvation Army and churches like them hadn’t been quietly carrying out the most successful evangelical outreach of the last 100+ years. She didn’t speak to me for awhile after that.

Rich Mullins said:

Jesus said whatever you do to the least of these my brothers you’ve done it to me. And this is what I’ve come to think. That if I want to identify fully with Jesus Christ, who I claim to be my savior and Lord, the best way that I can do that is to identify with the poor. This I know will go against the teachings of all the popular evangelical preachers. But they’re just wrong. They’re not bad, they’re just wrong. Christianity is not about building an absolutely secure little niche in the world where you can live with your perfect little wife and your perfect little children in a beautiful little house where you have no gays or minority groups anywhere near you. Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken.

"You guys are all into that born again thing, which is great. We do need to be born again, since Jesus said that to a guy named Nicodemus. But if you tell me I have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God, I can tell you that you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because Jesus said that to one guy too..... But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."

Shane Clairborne said:

True, the cross is not always seeker sensitive. It is not comfortable. But it is the cornerstone of our faith, and I fear that when we remove the cross, we remove the central symbol of the nonviolence and grace of our Lover. If we remove the cross, we are in danger of promoting a very cheap grace. Perhaps it should make us uncomfortable. After all, it wasn't so comfy to get nailed there.

We can admire and worship Jesus without doign what he did. We can applaud what he preached and stood for without caring about the same things. We can adore his cross without taking up ours. I had come to see that the great tragedy in the church is not that rich Christians do not care about the poor but that rich Christians do not know the poor.

..... Jesus came not just to prepare us to die but to teach us how to live

End Times?

Sorry, I don't buy this End Times crap. I've come to regard it as spiritually dangerous besides. People spend all their time running around looking for proof we're living in the End Times. Instead of trying to work to make the world a better place they just accept that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because this is the End Times, and things are supposed to get bad at the end. Also, consider the Parable of the Ten Virgins (Matthew 25). Five of the Virgins didn't bring enough oil. Why? They thought the Bride Groom would be coming sooner than he was, so they didn't think needed it. You can compare this to the End Times crowd. They're so sure the end will be soon, that they're not prepared for the long haul. Seriously, remember college when we were all into the End Times stuff - did any of us think we'd still be here all these years later? Remember the first Gulf War, and everyone was sure this was some great sign of the end being at hand? Well, guess what? We're still here. I think some of the spiritual burn out and periods of falling away were caused by this End Times mentallity. We weren't prepared for the long haul, but thankfully God is good, and He didn't come back and shut us out while we were out of oil. If you go back and read Church History almost every generation was absolutely sure they were going to be the last generation. This may or may not be the End Times, but I think if we devote ourselves to doing the things we know He wants us to do - "Love your neighbor as yourself," "Love the Lord, your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength," "As you do it to the least of these...." and stay strong in studying Scripture, so we don't get fooled again (thanks to The Who) then we won't need to worry about if it's The End Times or not. They'll take care of themselves, and He'll take care of us.

Speaking of spiritually dangerous. This outright frightens me. Read Besides the glitz and overdone production of it offends my Menno-Quaker sensibilities. This is just an outright heresy:


As for the preaching, it was motivating and highly inspirational: the sermon’s title (sorry, I’m not kidding) was “Ten Kinds of People That God Can’t Help.” The main idea was that you should “invest” your time in positive happy friends, instead of making bad investments in friendships with hopeless, unhappy people:

“Why are you trying to help people like that when even God can’t help them?” The sermon’s best one-liner: “The Bible isn’t a book about God’s love for man; it’s a book about man’s love for God.”

Excuse me???? There are some people that God can't help? So, God isn't all powerful? And we're not supposed to concern ourselves with the least because they're not happy and positive? Jesus was just talking to hear His own voice in Matthew 25? He didn't really come to bring good news to the afflicted, bind up the brokenhearted, and proclaim freedom to the captives? I'm sorry, but it's time for Christians who really believe in the Bible to stand up and say, "This is a load of crap! You are a false shepherd preaching a false gospel! And at risk of sounding judgemental - you will go to hell for it."

Thoughts On Church Attendance

This is something I've given a lot of thought to in my life. I have had more traumatic/scaring experiences in church than I care to recall. But, I persist in going. Why? Because I believe the Bible is clear: If you are a believer then you have to go to church, or if you're a Quaker - meeting. The Bible says the church is the body of Christ. You have to be a part of a body. If one of my toes suddenly decided to jump off my foot and go hang out by itself - my entire body would suffer for it. I could end up getting some kind of life threatening infection. It would almost certainly affect my balance and my ability to walk/run. But, just as importantly, the toe would wither and die. It couldn't survive apart from the rest of the body.

Hebrews 10:23-25 says:

Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who
promised is faithful; and letus consider how to stimulate one another to love
and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of
some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing
near. (NASB)

The Bible tells us it was part of Jesus' custom to go to synagogue (Luke 4:16). All four Gospels are filled with references to Jesus being in/teaching in the synagogues. Were there not big fat hypocrites in the synagogues? Hello! Pharisees! Do you think the leaders of the synagogues appreciated that Jesus showed up? No, I think most of them would have prefered he didn't come - that he stay at home and study on his own. In Matthew 12:24, they claim he did the things he did by the power of demons. In John 7:20, they said he was demon possessed. If I got treated like that at church, I might be inclined to stay home. But, that's not what Jesus did. Jesus - the Son of God - went to Church. He filled his function as part of The Body. If it's good enough for the Son of God, then it's good enough for me - and you!

Back to Hebrews 10:23-25 - it says

:.... let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good
deeds......... but encouraging one another........

If you're just out there hanging out by yourself who is encouraging you? Who are you stimulating to love and do good deeds? That is part of the functions of the body. It's something that can't happen, if you're just floating around by yourself. Another part of the function of the body is accountability. The Bible does set out standards of church discipline - which most churches don't actually do anymore - but, still....

Wilberforce said,

".....Those who have created a system of their own tend to water down
what is required in the practice of their faith. They also tend to create
standards of behavior that fit their own lifestyles; standards they know
they can meet without the need of supernatural assistance..."

I think this is a lot more likely to happen with a Lone Ranger Christian than with someone who is part of a body - no matter how imperfect that body is. Now, we all know people who have been hurt in church. We have probably all been hurt in church. I've said before that I think ... no I KNOW .... that I suffered significant spiritual damage at the Church of God. I still suffer from it, and probably will suffer from it at least to an extent until I die. But, I've probably also caused hurt to others. We will not be made perfect until the resurrection. This is where forgiveness comes in - which is also a commandment.

I have wasted a huge amount of time trolling for a transcript of this scene from The Breakfast Club. I have long thought it was the most brilliant scene in the movie. In the movie, Anthony Michael Hall's character, Brian Johnson, tells that the reason he's in detention is because he was contemplating killing himself because of his bad shop grade. The gun he brought to school with which to kill himself accidently went off in his locker, and for this he got ..... detention. Now, he would get probation. But, that's beside the point. The following is an exchange between Brian Johnson and John Bender (played by Judd Nelson):

Brian: I thought I was playing it real smart, you know. 'Cause I thought, I'll take shop, it'll be such an easy way to maintain my grade point average.
Bender: Why'd you think it'd be easy?Brian: Have you seen some of the dopes that take shop?Bender: I take shop. You must be a *****' idiot!
Brian: I'm a *****' idiot because I can't make a lamp?
Bender: No, you're a genius because you can't make a lamp.
Brian: What do you know about Trigonometry?
Bender: I could care less about Trigonometry.
Brian: Bender, did you know without Trigonometry there'd be no engineering?
Bender: Without lamps, there'd be no light.

Why am I thinking of this? In C.S. Lewis' Present Concerns, there is an essay called Democratic Education. In it Lewis comes across as a complete elitest pig. Seriously, I would be embarrassed for a friend who was not familiar with C.S. Lewis to read this book as a first exposure. If I were not already a fan of his other works, I would never pick up another book after this one. Mom says there's another one later in the book that's worse, but I haven't gotten to it yet.

In Democratic Education Lewis basically says that students he would consider to be dull should have to sit through Latin class - inspite of the fact that they 1) can't learn Latin, 2) could care less about Latin, 3) have no practical use for Latin because in Lewis' mind it is important for these students to learn that they are inferior. But, don't believe me - let's quote Lewis himself:

"......And one priceless benefit he will enjoy: he will know he's not
clever. The distinction between him and the great brains will have been
made clear to him ever since, in the playground, he punched the heads containing
those great brains. He will have a certain, half amused respect for
them. He will cheerfully admit that, though he could knock the spots off
them on the golf links, they know and do what he cannot...."

"....When (during a Latin lesson really intended for his betters) he is
contentedly whittling a piece of wood into a boat under the desk, must you come
in to discover a "talent" and pack him off to the woodcarving class, so
that what hitherto was fun must become one more lesson? Do you think he
will tank you? Half the charm of carcing the boat lay in the fact that it
involved a resistance to authority. Must you take that pleasure - a
pleasure without which no true democracy can exist - away from him? Give
him marks for his hobby, officialize it, finally fool the poor boy into the
belief that what he is doing is just as cleaver "in it's own way" as real
work?...."

Keep in mind, I went to an all-girl Catholic school, but I never heard of anything like wood carving class. I've heard of word working class, shop class, and when we lived in Powhatan there was the very imaginitavely named Building class. What they taught in classes like these were completely unimportant things like how to use a level, a triangle, make sure these kids actually knew how to read a ruler (completely unimportant in building), how to measure and cut, etc.. And the kids in these classes - well, they built things. The common thing I noticed about the kids who took these classes - besides that they weren't usually real academically inclined - was that 1) those kids weren't usually dumb. They just didn't give a rat's butt about Latin. The truly dumb kids were in special ed and were generally not allowed to play with sharp tools. 2) They liked the class. It was something they excelled at, but if Lewis couldn't excel at it it must be worthless, 3) It gave them the skills they needed to get completely unimportant jobs like being carpenters, mechanics, or be apprenticed as some other job that isn't real work. Because, you know, that being able to build furniture, cabinets, houses, repair a car is not real work!!! It is not important! What is important is to make these kids sit through classes in a dead language nobody actually speaks anymore. They must know they are not clever, so that people like C.S. Lewis could feel superior to them!!!! Never mind that if we'd asked C.S. Lewis to whittle a boat (or build a lamp) he probably would have cut off one of his non-flexible thumbs with the knife. But, then we are talking about a man who couldn't drive a car - let alone fix one.

Quotes

This one is Rich Mullins (one of my all-time bad influences) speaking at a chapel service at Wheton College in Illinios: "You guys are all into that born again thing, which is great. We do need to be born again, since Jesus said that to a guy named Nicodemus. But if you tell me I have to be born again to enter the kingdom of God, I can tell you that you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor, because Jesus said that to one guy too..... But I guess that's why God invented highlighters, so we can highlight the parts we like and ignore the rest."

True, the cross is not always seeker sensitive. It is not comfortable. But it is the cornerstone of our faith, and I fear that when we remove the cross, we remove the central symbol of the nonviolence and grace of our Lover. If we remove the cross, we are in danger of promoting a very cheap grace. Perhaps it should make us uncomfortable. After all, it wasn't so comfy to get nailed there - Shane Claiborne, Irresistible Revolution (Dietrich Bonhoeffer would approve of this quote)

We can admire and worship Jesus without doign what he did. We can applaud what he preached and stood for without caring about the same things. We can adore his cross without taking up ours. I had come to see that the great tragedy in the church is not that rich Christians do not care about the poor but that rich Christians do not know the poor. - Shane Claiborne, Irresistable Revolution.....

Jesus came not just to prepare us to die but to teach us how to live. - Shane Claiborne, Irresistable Revolution

Thoughts On Baptism

Although I was not officially raised any religion, I went to Catholic School through 10th grade. Going to Catholic School was the only consistent religious instruction I received right up until I was 12. As a matter of fact, I didn't know we weren't Catholic until my class went to First Communion. I was informed two days before the Big Day that I would not be going with my class because I wasn't Catholic. It was very traumatizing. Then, when I was 12, my mother got involved with a Church of God. She dragged me kicking and screaming (almost literally) with her. Someday I will blog about all the spiritual damage this church did to me, but not today.

I got baptized in the YMCA swimming pool when I was 12. At that time, I regarded it as more as a correction of something that *should* have happened when I was an infant than a public profession of faith. Also, I didn’t need my parents’ permission to do it. If I’d wanted to be baptized in the Catholic Church at the age of 12, I would have needed my parents’ permission. I think it goes without saying, that my mother would have never given THAT permission.

Now, as an adult, I reject the idea of infant baptism as contrary to scripture. If someone was baptized as an infant, I would say they need to be baptized again. I would never allow my own infant to be baptized. However, although I do not believe that I was mature enough to realize the implications of what I was doing when I was baptized, I have never been rebaptized - eventhough some have suggested it to me. I still have too much Catholic in me for that.

I have come to believe, and have encouraged my own son in this direction, that nobody under the age of 18 should be baptized. My understanding of baptism, based on my study of the Bible, is that it is like getting married. You are publically proclaiming that you’re going to live for Jesus Christ for the rest of your life. I don’t believe a child is capable of making that sort of committment anymore than a child is capable of making the committment required of marriage. It is also a formal joining of the Body of Christ. I don’t know of any church that confers full church membership on any person under 18 years old. But, they’ll baptize a five or six year old? Quakers (who don’t practice water baptism at all) don’t confer full membership before the age of 25. I think this rush to baptize children in many Protestant churches are no better than the Catholic practice of baptizing infants, and I think a lot of kids do it for the wrong reasons. They think they're supposed to get baptized at that age. They want to make their parents happy. It has little or nothing to do with faith. I remember when my cousin was going through Confirmation. He showed me his catechism book. He said he didn't think he believed a lot of the stuff in the book. Now, since I had to go through confirmation classes with my peers, I seem to remember that Confirmation is supposed to be an affirmation of faith. I encouraged him not to go through with the confirmation until he was sure because God hates a liar. The Catholic branch of my family wanted to murder me. My cousin went ahead with his Confirmation because that was what he was supposed to do at that particular age, it was expected of him, and he had the good sense to fear Grandma more than God. God might forgive him. Grandma would not. That I know of, my cousin is not actually a believer. I think there is a lot of that happening with young people in Protestant churches. Some of them are pressuring five year olds to profess faith and get baptized. Others might wait until more like 12 - 16, but still - it's not so much a public profession of faith as something that they think is supposed to happen at that age.