Sunday, January 27, 2008

Politics in the Pulpit

Every four years churches across the States put their Father in subordination to the founding Fathers. Every four years the Bible is pushed aside for the Constitution and the bread and wine of Eucharist for the elephants and donkeys of Washington. Spiritual formation is put on the back burner for political fabrication. Every four years churches across America open up their pulpits for campaigning candidates. Churches who may not allow the preacher down the street to speak from their pulpit allow candidates who may not even be Christians speak from a holy place.

The allegiance of many of our churches is stronger towards the state than it is to the Church. How is it that the state has become more important than the Church? How is it that we do not make exceptions for non-essential theological issues, but make exceptions for political candidates? How is it that the Oval Office is able to trump the Heavenly Throne? It is not only the churches who allow candidates to actually preach (campaign) from their pulpits that are guilty of this allegiance to the state. Any church which "campaigns" from its pulpits are giving preference to the state. It is my hope that those who read this will think twice about allowing their churches to become more allegiant to the state than to God.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Following Jesus


We (Christians) often speak of being followers of Christ. But, how far are we really willing to go with that statement? How far will we follow Jesus?

If we are willing to follow Jesus anywhere that he goes we will find ourselves in some undesirable locations. It is easy to follow Jesus to church on Sunday. It is easy to follow Jesus to a midweek Bible-study. It is easy to follow Jesus to your bed in evening prayers. But is it easy to follow Jesus everywhere that he goes?

If we are willing to follow Jesus wherever he goes we will have to go to the sick, poor, and oppressed of this world. We will have to go into gang infested neighborhoods of Southern California. We will have to go into the starving villages of Africa. We will have to enter into the world of the sex-slave trade of Eastern Asia. We will have to go places which will make us uncomfortable. We will have to go places which will cause us harm. We will have to go places which will get us killed!

Are you willing to take up your cross and follow Jesus? Am I willing? Will we truly risk our lives for the sake of following after Jesus? Will we risk shame for the sake of following after Jesus? Can we really be called followers of Christ, with how we currently live our lives?

It is my desire that this post makes you and I think about what it means to be following Jesus. I desire that that thought would then turn into action, the action of following Jesus. Will we become Christians?

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Embryonic Hypocrisy


This happens to be an issue which has bothered me for quite some time, however I have yet to discuss it or write on it, until now. There is a gigantic gap in the logic of many evangelical Christians on the issue of biochemistry. Many evangelicals are in adamant opposition to embryonic stem cell research. They are in opposition to these because they believe that life begins at conception. They believe that life begins when a single sperm enters an egg, life has begun. Since, embryonic stem cell research destroys fertilized eggs they are destroying life.

However, almost all evangelical Christians are content with in vitro fertilization. The process of in vitro fertilization results in an excess of fertilized eggs. These eggs are either frozen, destroyed or given over for scientific experiments. In vitro fertilization destroys more fertilized eggs each year than stem cell research. Yet, there are no protests, or "special" radio programs, or bills being pushed by evangelicals in opposition to in vitro fertilization.

In this post I'm neither supporting nor opposing in vitro fertilization or embryonic stem cell research. What I am doing is pointing out the hypocrisy widely found among evangelicals. This embryonic hypocrisy should not be. People should either hold to the position that life begins at conception and therefore embryonic stem cell research AND in vitro fertilization are immoral. Or, they should hold to the position that life begins some point after conception and therefore embryonic stem cell research AND in vitro fertilization are morally acceptable. It is inconsistent to claim that many fertilized eggs can be destroyed so that a 20-50% chance of a woman carrying and giving birth to a child, is moral; but experimenting on fertilized eggs with the hope of keeping people alive, is immoral. With hypocrisy like this, it is no wonder that people stereotype evangelicals as a bunch on brainwashed ignorant people.